The Conservative *
A corporation is
CORPORATIONS.
a natural product
of evolution. It is an improvement in
the industrial world and bears the same
relation to capital that the machine does
to labor. One displaces hand labor
while the other drives out the small cap
italist. If the displacement of the small
capitalist is in itself an evil and must be
suppressed by statute , we must apply the
same hostile regulation to the introduc
tion and use of improved machinery.
To do either would be to strike a severe
blow at industrial progress. Modern
business enterprise has become of such
colossal magnitude that immense capital
is required to successfully carry it on.
This capital must be either the accumu
lations of one individual or the com
bined fortunes of many. As few indi
viduals are possessed of sufficient private
resourcesthis capital is , most generally ,
accumulated in corporate form. What
evil can there be in this consolidation of
money and enterprise as distinguished
from its individual ownership and man
agement ? Does it not indicate a more
healthful industrial condition to have
this democratic form of capital , its dis
tributed possession , than to have a mon-
arohial ownership of it ? Is it not better
for the community to have this owner
ship in the many rather than in one ?
Corporations then in themselves are
not an evil. They are a necessity. Their
destruction would
Not an Evil.
be a step backward
a return to primitive methods of trade.
The real question involved in this trust
agitation is not one of suppression but
of discrimination. We should seek not
to destroy the corporation or combina
tion but to remove the possibility of
their doing evil.
A danger that is frequently pointed
out in these combinations of capital , is
that many of them
Speculation.
are organized for
the purpose of speculation in stocks
rather than to carry on a legitimate
business. This , however , is not a danger
that concerns the public generally , but
is confined to those who buy stock and
become a part of the combination. The
way , then , to avoid the dangers of the
speculative trust is to keep out of it.
The failures in the last few months of
trusts of this character show that they
will correct themselves and perish of
their own accord. Legislation is no
more required to suppress this form of
speculation than it is to restrain people
from buying real estate at boom prices.
The only real danger of trusts is that
of monopoly , or the stifling of compe
tition. The remedy
Price Raising1.
for this is quite
simple. The policy of England gives us
a helpful suggestion. Thomas Scanlon ,
of Liverpool , England , in writing about
"Trusts in Great Britain" says in a pre
vious issue of THE CONSERVATIVE :
"That trusts exist in free trade couu-
tries is undeniable , but while in the
former the economy in production which
results from their promotion goes to
benefit the consumer in the shape of re
duced prices , in the latter they are
identified with high prices to the con
sumers and large profits to the producers.
Our American friends are just now re
ceiving a short lesson in the principles
of free trade. They have built up high
tariff walls in the interests of high
prices. If the American workingmen
want high prices , by all means let them
have them , but surely it is a little illogic
al for them to complain when the trusts
and combines have raised the prices to
the limit allowed by the tariff. The
'trust' in itself is a harmless institution ;
it is the tariff the element of monopoly
that makes it harmful. If they want
to cripple the power of the trusts
they must attack them through the
tariffs. "
In this paragraph is contained the
meat of the whole trust controversy. It
is a common sense
Remove the Turin1. . , , .
view of the ques
tion and suggests the only logical
remedy , viz. , "to attack them through
the tariffs. " Every price-raising and
price-controlling trust in this country is
protected by tariff duties and , to the ex
tent of these duties , is thus enabled to
arbitrarily raise prices. Congress , al
ready , has ample power to remove the
tariff. The constitutional amendment ,
proposed by Mr. Bryan and the republi
cans is entirely superfluous.
° f
THE BOXERS.
the "boxers" in
China is construed in this country as a
ground for interference by the civilized
nations of the world ; that they should
crush the Chinese dynasty and dismem
ber the empire. Because of an attack
upon American missionarieswho seek to
Christianize China.it is generally accept
ed as a sign of moral degeneracy of
sufficient enormity to justify "armed
intervention" and , with the persuasive
influence of rapid fire guns , to compel
the unwilling heathen to worship as we
would have him worship.
In our Christian zeal and deep relig
ious fervor we forget that , when we deny
the Chinese the
Reciprocity. . . . . . .
right to come into
our country we must grant to them the
reciprocal right of denying their coun
try to us. If it is right for us to pre
serve our nationality by excluding people
of a different national type , whose as
similation is apparently hopeless , the
right must be admitted , for those who
are thus excluded , to preserve their
national character by opposing the in
vasion of their country by our people.
We forget , too , that for every lawless
outbreak against Americans in China ,
there is precedent in the attacks upon
Chinese residents of our country and
this at the ratio of about 20 to 1
hostile demonstration in China. But
has any religious enthusiast suggested
because of these anarchistic tendencies
among our own people , that our country
should be invaded by hostile foreign
bands ?
If American missionaries had not gone
to the Chinese empire and sought to re
place the native with the Christian re
ligion , we would not now be involved in
any difficulty with China nor would
there be the slightest occasion for any '
warlike demonstration. Since it is
plainly evident that our missionaries are
persona uon grata , what is the duty of
our government ? Should we have them
retire or should we use our army to keep '
them in China ?
Our duty from a "Christian" standpoint - j
point is thus vividly portrayed by |
, , , Bishop Earl Crau- S
Christian Duty.
ston , of the Methodist -
odist church , who recently returned from j
China :
"It is worth any cost in money. It is
worth any cost in bloodshed , if we can
make the millions of Chinese true and
intelligent Christians. I would cut all
the red tape in the world and break all
the treaties ever made to place the
armies of the United States in the fore
next to Great Britain. The open door
must be maintained for Christianity as
well as commerce. "
The opinion of this prominent Metho
dist divine reflects quite accurately ,
public opinion from the standpoint of
those engaged in foreign mission work.
The Bishop says , if money will not
make Christians out of them we must
use the shot gun. "To make them
true and intelligent Christians , " he says ,
"it is worth any cost in bloodshed. " We
are constrained to believe that the pious
expounder made this statement only
after being fully convinced that the army
to be slaughtered would not be recruited
from among the bishops. It is quite
significant , too , that he was discreet
enough to place the Pacific Ocean be
tween himself and the irate dowager
before giving publicity to his opinions.
According to this new exponent of
international law , this is not a secular ,
but a Christian
A Christian Nation. . T ,
nation. Instead of
the purpose of our government being to
protect the inalienable rights , of life ,
liberty , and pursuit of happiness , it is to
protect and propagate the Christian re
ligion and to prosecute a war of ex
termination upon all other religions.
Although Christ taught righteousness
and justice toward all men , this modern
interpreter of divine will would "break
all the treaties ever made to place the
armies of the United States in the fore
next to Great Britain. "
This is the policy fanatical religious
propagandists would force upon the
country. They
Charlemagne. . rf . - .
would do as Char
lemagne did. In 772 he started out to
convert the Saxons to Christianity. He
used the same methods our Methodist
brother would now employ. It required
V..T. y n - '
vttrx ; > _ ' '
