the cheapest labor is to be found. It is clear that the tariff, instead of being the occasion of trusts, is our only protection against them. One thing is very sure--the trusts would never assail their own mother.

In conclusion Mr. Blair presented the following resolutions which he had proposed to offer for the consideration of the conference had it been decided to formulate resolutions expressing its sentiments. As it had been decided not to do this, he desired that they be printed simply as a part of his remarks, and mere personal suggestions.

Resolved, That all artificial persons known as partnerships, corporations, trusts, and all combinations of like nature, which may compete in business with individual men, should be created and should be permitted to exist only by the supreme power of the state, or nation, within whose jurisdiction they may operate, and with care to so limit and control the same in duration, capital, sphere and methods of action, and in all other respects, as not to injure but rather to promote the general welfare.

Resolved, Whenever such artificial person is created which is to operate outside the limits of the state of its origin, it should be made subject to supervision and control by the sovereignty of the nation and of any state in which it shall transact business, and to this end, and that there may be no longer any doubt of its jurisdiction, we hold that the national constitution should be amended so as expressly to confer such jurisdiction.

Resolved, Whenever such artificial person shall have violated any of the conditions upon which life was given to it, that life should be taken away by the power which gave or controls it, and its property and franchises disposed of by law; while the individuals composing, controlling, or responsible for the control of such artificial person, should at all times be held to rigid accountability, both civilly and criminally, as private individuals in like cases are held by the laws of the land.

Resolved, We demand of the government, both in the nation and in the several states, the most rigid scrutiny and control of all artificial persons, the function of which is to develop and handle the primal resources of the earth, and of those great lines of transportation which distribute to the consumer the tremendous productions of American agriculture and the commodities of our marvelous manufacturing skill, to the end that everywhere the evils of monopolistic combinations may be rooted out, exposed and destroyed.

Resolved, We recognize in full the rights of organized labor,

and would still further increase them and their sphere of peaceful operation. We have no sympathy with that theory which classifies and confounds these organizations, existing only to enable the individual man to preserve his power, capacity and opportunity to labor, with his hands, in order that himself and family may at least exist, and if possible, better their condition, as being the same in nature with those gigantic artificial combinations which operate inanimate machines, dispensing with the living labor as much as possible, by means of the wealth which the laborer has already created by the sweat of his brow, and continues to pour out that he may barely live, while the combination thrives. But in co-operation, arbitration, and the free adjustments growing out of increasing mutual respect and good will, we hail the glad assurance, for both the laborer and the employer, of a happier day.

Resolved, That the protective tariff is not the mother of trusts, but the protective tariff is the mother of American wealth and power.

Resolved further, That the protective tariff is the only means by which the American people can protect themselves against the most dangerous of all trusts, which is the international trust, and can also preserve to themselves, against all competition, their own market for the results and rewards of their own work, thus avoiding the destruction of their prosperity, independence, manhood, and civilization.

GEORGE A. SCHILLING.

Ex-Secretary Bureau of Labor Statistics of Illinois.

It has been remarked by Mr. Cockran that in his judgment before another conference of this character shall take place, that a majority of the trust employers of the United States will have associated with them their wageworkers as official partners in their business; that is to say, they will be admitted to representation upon their boards of directors. This, according to Mr. Cockran, would be simply giving an official recognition of the partnership which already exists in fact between the employer and the employee.

I am myself a member of a labor union, though not officially representing one here, but in my judgment, if this consolidation between the labor unions and the trusts is ever consummated, it will be for one of two reasons: First, either because organized

labor will demand recognition and organized capital will be too weak to resist the demand, or secondly, because the trusts fear that they cannot continue to perpetrate grand larceny upon the public unless they take the labor organizations in with them. There will be no humanity about it; no sentiment nor brotherly love whatever. It will be a cold matter of business.

But I did not rise for the purpose of further inflaming you, but rather to make clear the problem and to see to what extent some of the fog which has been diffused on all sides may be dispelled. Generally speaking, there are two divisions in this convention; closer sifting would classify them into four or five, but there are primarily two. One division consists of those that do not want the trusts to be interfered with at all, while the other wishes to deal with the problem through restrictive legislation. Now, in order to determine whether the trust shall be interfered with at all, and how, we ought first to find out the difference between the capitalistic trust and the trust known as the labor union, and I think if we can clearly determine the difference between the two we will have some light to guide us on our way.

Now, the workingman in any craft realizes that standing alone in the presence of modern economic forces, he would be annihilated and would stand no show to make any agreement satisfactory to himself, therefore he joins himself unto his fellow-workmen and multiplies his power through the law of association, and in the character of this composite man he stands in the labor world with sufficient influence to, at least in a degree, determine the conditions under which he shall be employed.

The capitalistic corporations contending against unfavorable conditions, likewise look about and ask what can be done to get rid of the wasteful and injurious methods of business, and they, too, invoke the law of association, and begin to consolidate all the allied interests in their line.

Now, up to this point, there is absolutely no difference in the character of the organization of labor and the organization of capital. Both are utilizing their power to associate-an attribute that God has given to man to a greater degree than to any other thing that walks or creeps on this earth. But right here the similarity ends, and the paths diverge. It is this difference in character which these two organizations at this point assume that exposes "the negro in the woodpile" and justifies public interference with the capitalistic trust, but does not justify similar interference with the labor organization.

I have said that up to this point both capital and labor augment and multiply their power many fold solely through the law

of association; but the workingman has nothing but this law to aid him, whereas capital has all of its advantages plus all of the monopolies which are conferred through special privileges that give additional power and strength to the trust. And it is because of this that Mr. Cockran in his otherwise very able speech, was, in my judgment, so fallacious, when illustrating in the manufacture of his chair his self-acting, unvarying law by which wages were distributed regardless of the power or influence of the trades union. Had Mr. Cockran taken an industrial society entirely devoid of special privileges, then he would have proven his case. But he assumed that the law by which wages are distributed operated now in that unvarying and equitable way.

Let us suppose that there is a train of cars loaded with grain to be dumped through a chute into this building and that this chute is made so tight that every particle of grain that goes in at one end will surely be deposited at the other, there is then no flaw from the point where the grain is received to the point where it is deposited. But suppose instead of being perfectly tight this chute had several holes in it known as special privileges through which from 25 to 50 per cent of the grain would leak while in transit. Now, anyone can see that under such circumstances you cannot divide any more grain at the final point of deposit than reaches it. That there are such holes through which industry is despoiled no thoughtful person will deny. They are the monopolies of tariffs, franchises of public utilities, money, patents and land-and it is the possession of these special privileges by the capitalistic trust that justifies public interference.

But I am not in favor of restrictive legislation. Instead of "Be it enacted," I would prefer to solve the problem by "Be it repealed." The restrictive legislation enacted within the past thirty years against corporate wealth has not brought the results intended. Contrariwise, in many instances these enactments have been employed for the suppression of the masses. The belief that our industrial ills can be cured by filling our statute books with restrictive legislation, is delusive, yet everywhere this tendency is taking shape, and everywhere it fails to remove the evils complained of. Instead of cutting the Gordian knot of monopoly and allowing the full play of industrial forces to liberate man from his thralldom, prohibitory legislation is relied upon as the panacea. Instead of crushing the head of the serpent-monopoly-that poisons all the streams of our industrial and political life, we give it full sway and then consume large quantities of restrictive legislation as a means of neutralizing the poison. The result is that society and industry are being

tied up in an inextricable tangle. Rather than to continue thus I should prefer to take out from under these trusts the props of special privileges that give them this undue power to fleece the public.

First of all, I would repeal the entire tariff laws and place the United States upon an absolutely tree trade basis with all the world. This would compel us to revise our entire fiscal system, in the remodeling of which we might place many of the burdens where they properly belong. It would even give the Single Taxers an opportunity to present their views, and if enacted into law would rob landlordism of its power.

I would repeal the 10 per cent tax on banks of issue, and the national banking laws, and would make the issuing of money as free as the air.

While I am not clear as to the utility of repealing all of the patent laws, I believe that the time permitted under the present laws could be reduced one-half to the general benefit of the public.

F. E. HALEY.

Secretary Iowa State Traveling Men's Association.

The commercial travelers of the United States almost to a man are decidedly against trusts and trade combines. In fact, I might state with accuracy, the people in general are opposed to the combinations that have been capitalizing themselves with the sole view of enriching the few at the expense of the masses. Trusts are, in my opinion, a menace to the people. Their principal object is that the army of consumers should pay tribute to the few. They should be placed under federal control, but the law enacted to bring about this state of affairs should be straightforward and not evasive, as it seems to be at the present time. A constitutional amendment, clearly defining the rights of the capitalists as well as to protect the purchasers or consumers, would be productive of the most good to the greatest number. It is self-evident that trusts are looked upon with mistrust by the wage-earner and common people. If such is the case,

just to such an extent are trusts a menace to the interest of the country. The question of trusts and trade combines, by concentrating the wealth of the country into the hands of the few, is and has been producing discontent for the past year. Hence, a readjustment of affairs in the near future is absolutely necessary in order that the business interests of the country may be put upon a calm and businesslike basis.