THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH
9
what he has to sell, and while he would like to destroy the
labor union and prevent the merchant from cooperating
with other merchants, he, himself, has his own interests he
would like to protect by some form of combination with
his competitors.
While these words are being written the Governors of
a number of Southern States are conspiring together to
devise a scheme whereby their cotton-growers will get
better prices for their cotton, whereby competition will be
checked, production controlled, and, in the end, the mills
be made to pay more for raw material. A laudable enter-
prise surely—from the point of view of the grower—but
how about the consumer, and how about the law, and how
about the speeches of those very Governors in support of
those laws which say competition must flourish unfettered ?
Congressmen and Senators from the cotton-growing
States are especially eloquent in this behalf, the Sherman
law has no more fiery and uncompromising defenders—
when Northern trusts are involved.
VII
Efforts to suppress competition in products of the soil
are not confined to the Southern States. In the North high
political officials have lent the sanction of their presence
and approval to movements to control prices of farm
products. In fact, so far as the politician is concerned, he
sees no evil in the union of laborers, cotton-growers, to-
bacco-growers and farmers—i. e., voters—to absolutely fix
prices; they may combine, strike, boycott, pool, store, de-
stroy, do anything they please, but let the capitalist, the
employer, the manufacturer, do a tithe of these things and
there is trouble.
To the politician the combination of labor can do no
9
what he has to sell, and while he would like to destroy the
labor union and prevent the merchant from cooperating
with other merchants, he, himself, has his own interests he
would like to protect by some form of combination with
his competitors.
While these words are being written the Governors of
a number of Southern States are conspiring together to
devise a scheme whereby their cotton-growers will get
better prices for their cotton, whereby competition will be
checked, production controlled, and, in the end, the mills
be made to pay more for raw material. A laudable enter-
prise surely—from the point of view of the grower—but
how about the consumer, and how about the law, and how
about the speeches of those very Governors in support of
those laws which say competition must flourish unfettered ?
Congressmen and Senators from the cotton-growing
States are especially eloquent in this behalf, the Sherman
law has no more fiery and uncompromising defenders—
when Northern trusts are involved.
VII
Efforts to suppress competition in products of the soil
are not confined to the Southern States. In the North high
political officials have lent the sanction of their presence
and approval to movements to control prices of farm
products. In fact, so far as the politician is concerned, he
sees no evil in the union of laborers, cotton-growers, to-
bacco-growers and farmers—i. e., voters—to absolutely fix
prices; they may combine, strike, boycott, pool, store, de-
stroy, do anything they please, but let the capitalist, the
employer, the manufacturer, do a tithe of these things and
there is trouble.
To the politician the combination of labor can do no