and then agree to distribute a reasonable share of the profits among the skilled artisans whom they employ as a per cent or profit upon their wages, the trusts would then be placed upon an honest, popular and reasonable foundation, and no one could complain or justly oppose them. I can see no reason why such an experiment may not be made by employers, nor can I see why it would not succeed. To do this would bring about harmony to a large degree between labor and capital, and would measurably-though not entirely-take the fangs out of the trust and the combine. This is one of the ways, and it seems to me to be the logical way, to settle this ever-existing controversy, and settle it right, because it would then be a just, and, I may say, enlightened co-operation, and you all know that co-operation is the fundamental principle of a trust. It is, in short, the very heart of it. The trouble, however, with the most of the trusts as they are now conducted is that the "co-operation" is all one-sided-all in favor of the stockholders, while the skilled laborers and the consumers are wholly ignored. This seems to be the fundamental principle-the foundation, so to speak, on which the entire trust movement rests. Why, then, cannot its scope be widened so as to take in or embrace all the classes whose interests are involved? So long as the trust now stands, and so long as it is thus conducted, that long it will be antagonized by the masses, and it therefore cannot be enduring, nor can it result as a permanent, profitable investment for the stockholders, or can it in any way benefit the mechanics or the people in general.

Mr. President, I do not wish to be understood as opposing modern methods of progress. I believe in conserving in every possible manner the waste of time and energy of the great mass of our people. The day of wooden plows and stage coaches and horseback mails have gone by forever. To keep abreast of the times in which we live, we must use all modern discoveries and appliances. We must of necessity "keep in the push" or otherwise perish. All wise people will strive to reduce every possible waste of energy. The blacksmith shop and the wooden plow were good enough in their day. They answered the purpose then, but they are out of date now. Old methods have been steadily discarded, and economical appliances, operated by steam and electricity, have been substituted therefor. The same is true. in almost every business avocation peculiar to our people. The trust seems, on its face, to be a step forward in the ever-shifting drama of growth and progress. It claims as its main purpose to save waste in production and distribution. Every student of political economy will admit, in a measure, the force of this par

102

ticular claim, because the greatest enemy to human progress is waste. While it may be true that a number of factories in a particular industry, which have been competing with one another in a particular line of production, agree to unite for a common purpose, consenting to not fight one another, and purposing to furnish a particular article of manufacture to the consumer at a specific price, of itself is not necessarily wrong. Indeed, on its face it appears to be right; but it may be wrong-forever wrong -and usually is wrong, as I see it, for two especial reasons: First: This combine can and will (if they are looking out for their own interests alone) increase the price of their product to the consumer, and at the same time cut the wages of their employees; and, second, every small manufacturer engaged in that particular industry will either have to quit business or join "the combine." But the combine will doubtless say in reply that the small manufacturer can himself join the trust, or keep on as he is then doing, if he likes. How, I ask, can he continue his business successfully, if all of his competitors in the same line of production have combined against him? They can and will for the purpose of "freezing him out" cut prices until he has "to squeal and throw up the sponge," and then the combine has its own way and can fix its own prices, and it usually does so, and all of you who hear me know it and know it well. In cases of this sort, the small dealer succumbs, and the combine or trust fixes its own prices and the people are compelled to submit.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I confess I am one of the common people of this country who is not hysterical over this trust controversy. I am inclined to the opinion that it can and will be regulated by wise and proper legislation, and by public sentiment, which in the end always settles matters of this sort. All political economists agree that the prevention of waste (unnecessary waste) by all nations is the secret of their growth and success. This proposition is unquestionably true, and I will not therefore undertake to controvert it. A wise man will save every cent, every dime, every lump of coal, every particle of manure, everything that can be utilized to better his condition and help him on in life. But it seems to me that no intelligent man will favor any measure which will place him at the mercy of a few of his fellow-citizens who will have it in their power to say what he shall do, or what he shall pay for that which necessity requires him to purchase.

I am aware of the fact, Mr. President, that the backers of trusts set up three distinct claims or arguments in their defense, viz: First, that they pay the highest rates of wages to their em

ployees; second, that they furnish the best articles to the consumer; and, third, that they furnish them lower or cheaper than they can otherwise be produced. While I admit that there is something in these claims, yet they are true only in a restricted sense. The first of these claims is, I think, absolutely true. Trusts pay big wages because they employ none but high grade men and women, which they can afford to do. The second proposition is perhaps true in most cases, but by no means in all. The third claim is only true in a few instances. If I had the time to-day I could definitely mention them to this Federation. But in the generality of cases, prices to consumers increase instead of diminish where trusts are enforced. Therefore the few, and not the many, are the direct beneficiaries of these trust combines. Consequently, my countrymen, when one pauses and carefully considers all the facts involved; when he thoughtfully weighs both sides of the issue before him; when he seriously reflects, as it is the duty of every good citizen so to do; when he sees the vast multitude of his fellow countrymen who have fitted themselves by education and experience as "middle-men" in the various avocations of life, necessarily thrown out of employment because of trusts; and when he goes farther and thinks of the thousands and tens of thousands of his fellow-countrymen of limited means, yet at the same time industrious, sober and enterprising, who cannot, because of their limited resources, cope with the trusts and the combines, and are necessarily forced to quit business, then the enormity of the wrong (not to say crime) of choking them out of an honest effort to support themselves and families, can be fully understood and fully appreciated.

If the advocates of and participants in the trusts could satisfy the masses upon the following propositions, they would then have but limited opposition in the years to come, viz.: First, Will you and can you, in all cases, as you claim, agree to furnish a better and cheaper article to consumers of all the necessaries of life covered by your trusts and combines? Second, What do you propose to do with the tens of thousands of middle-men now employed, who of necessity must lose their present positions? And, third, what will become of the "small dealers" scattered over our country from Maine to Florida, and from the surges of the Atlantic to the Sunset Sea whose waves make music in the golden sands of California? What are you going to do with this large class of our fellow citizens who are now prosperous and happy in their present occupations? These are momentous problems, and involve momentous results.

I may be wrong, Mr. President, in my conclusions; but it