cial and industrial conditions. Nor, on the other hand, will he who appreciates the significance and the beneficent results of a world's market consent to the suggestion that the business transactions of a state concern should not extend beyond the borders of a state. Here is a problem for statesmen to contemplate, and it is possible before arriving at its solution that the constitutional relations between the local and the federal government will be subjected to modification. Without entering upon this phase of the subject, may I submit for consideration the following proposition: The true function of a central government in dealing with problems of internal economy is to determine the fundamental principles of legislation, while the true function of local government is to express those principles in the terms of local conditions and to administer the laws thus expressed. By this means harmony of action at least would be secured and one of the conditions out of which industrial combinations spring will have been set aside.

My third suggestion in explanation of the persistence of combinations in industries which from their nature are subject to competition is found in the unsatisfactory condition of state laws of incorporation. This is a question that should be considered by a lawyer, but by the lawyer who is familiar with the industrial history of the English speaking people. Originally a corporation created by the state was regarded as an arm of the state. Individuals were clothed with some degree of public authority because they undertook to perform what were regarded as public duties. The East India Company, which planted an empire, is an illustration of such a corporation. The modern idea of a corporation is entirely different. It is regarded merely as a business organization. I have not time to discuss this abstruse question, even had I the ability, but of one thing I am confident: The theory of law which now prevails respecting industrial corporations should be so changed that the public element is again brought into prominence. Industries should be classified, and the right of incorporation granted to one class and denied to another, and special restrictions, if not constant supervision, should be exercised over such industries as are incorporated before we can again reintroduce into this modern, complex machine-organized industrial society the conditions favorable to the normal working of the beneficent principle of competition.

Whatever may be said upon the questions thus far submitted, there is one point respecting which all should agree. Industrial combinations, whatever their form, whatever their purpose, whatever their explanation, are matters of public concern. It is said,

we do not know enough of this new form of industrial organization to judge properly respecting it. If this be true, and if on this account trusts are to be allowed a probationary existence, it is the plain duty of government to hold them meantime to strict account. The statistician should be pressed into service, the keeping of books should be regarded as of paramount importance, and the rule according to which accounts are kept and reports made should be formulated in the interest of investigation. The propriety of this suggestion can be questioned by no one. If trusts are what they claim, that is to say, the vanguards of a new industrial organization which holds within itself great industrial benefits, the sooner this fact is recognized by the public, the better for all concerned. If, on the other hand, there is danger in the extreme application of this form of organization, the government certainly has a right to possess itself of all facts necessary for a judicious opinion and for effective legislation. It would be a step in the right direction should the states make provision for an interstate organization of statistical inquiry and confer upon such an organization adequate authority for the uniform prosecution of its investigation. Where competition controls, the government may safely refrain from interference, but where competition is excluded, or where the conditions for its exercise are such as to give one competitor an advantage over another, nothing remains but public supervision; and, I repeat, the most important, indeed the essential agency for legislation or for administrative supervision is a thoroughly organized bureau of statistics and accounts clothed with authority over the auditing departments of these industrial associations.

Permit me in closing to pass in rapid review the questions, so far as they have been presented, which underlie the problem now claiming your attention. It was first suggested that industries differ in their fundamental character and that no wise policy can be adopted until those which are naturally monopolistic are separated from those which by nature are subject to competitive control. It was, in the second place, suggested that before a reasonable opinion could be entertained respecting trusts their relation to prices, to commercial depressions, as also their influence upon democracy, should be clearly grasped. Turning, then, in the third place, to a consideration of the current tendency toward monopoly in industries which naturally are subject to competitive control, it was stated that the explanation of this tendency is found in the conditions under which manufacturing and commercial enterprises are carried on. Three of these conditions were mentioned: First, the fact that railways do discriminate

in favor of large shippers; second, that the extension of commercial relations beyond the jurisdiction of the states has resulted in confusion of law and uncertainty of procedure-a condition especially favorable to the encouragement of great interstate industries; third, attention was called to the unsatisfactory condition of the laws of incorporation as one of the elements in the conditions by which trusts are fostered. And finally, your attention was called to the fact that whatever else may be determined upon, provision should be made by the states for an efficient, comprehensive and harmonious control over the auditing departments of such industries as choose the trust organization for the prosecution of business.

The question before this convention is indeed a great question. It moves in many directions and embraces many considerations. It is at bottom a question of social theories and social ideas. Its vastness will be appreciated when it is observed that its judicious treatment will result in securing for the people the advantages of the industrial development of the past century, while to ignore it or to fail in its solution would result in prostituting the wealth created by an hundred years of phenomenal development to the service of a class.

DUDLEY G. WOOTEN.

Member Texas Legislature.

At the conclusion of Professor Adams' remarks, the chairman introduced Hon. Dudley Goodall Wooten, of the Texas Legislature. Mr. Wooten was the first speaker on the uncompromising anti-trust side of the debate. The gallery audience was in sympathy with his views, and, carried away by the eloquence of the gifted orator, punctuated his address with salvo after salvo of applause. Mr. Wooten said:

The delegates from Texas are highly sensible of the honor of having one of their number called upon to address this learned and representative body upon the first day of its assembling. It is I believe understood that this day's session shall be devoted to a general discussion of the problems under consideration, leaving to the subsequent proceedings of the Conference the detailed and special examination of the various phases of the subject. I therefore feel less hesitation in responding to the call made upon me at this time, and in the remarks