Was it a belated expression of sympathy with the Boers, who had yielded up their property and their lives in defence of liberty?

Was it to applaud the Campbell-Bannerman ministry for prohibiting the further importation of slaves-Chinese coolies-into South Africa?

Was it even an appeal for them to take measures to prevent their being still further despoiled by the trusts and other privileged interests?

Oh, no! Nothing so foolish; nothing so idealistic as that was the cause of the "riotous enthusiasm."

The occasion was a meeting to protest against "joint-statehood," i. e., against the admission of New Mexico and Arizona as one state. This being what one of the speakers described as 'an infamous plan to deprive Arizonans of their liberty." "Scratch a Russian," it is said, "and you will find a Tartar.”

With more unerring accuracy, it might be said, "Scratch a blatant patriot and you will find an exploiter." Forever and aye, this has been the record of history and it finds its exemplification in current affairs as in those of the past. To listen to these vociferous patriots one would imagine that the greatest and most fundamental principles of human liberty and human rights were involved in the question of joint or single statehood for Arizona and New Mexico.

What is this "infamous plan to deprive Arizonans of their liberty"? It is the plan of the Republican majority of the 59th, as it was of the same men in the previous Congress, to make two states of the four territories; Oklahoma and Indian Territory to form one, New Mexico and Arizona the other. The population of the two former approximating a million, while the two latter have about half as many.

interest or local prejudice, one might put the query: In what manner does admission to statehood with its right of suffrage and self-government "deprive you of your liberty," even though it be in conjunction with another territory?

Is human liberty a question of numbers ? Is self-government a matter of area?

Do the people of Nevada enjoy selfgovernment because there are but fifty thousand of them, while those of Rhode Island cannot possess it because they number half a million? Or, is it that the inhabitants of Rhode Island have selfgovernment because that state has but 1,200 square miles, but the people of Texas can never possess it owing to that state being two hundred times as big?

If not, then why all this perfervid oratory? Why does Mayor Rose of Milwaukee declare that "the spirit of individual liberty is smothered"?

The same dispatch which brings us the account of this meeting reveals (unintentionally, I assume) the motives which animate those who are preaching sedition, threatening armed resistance by the people of Arizona, as it states that "Mayor Rose has extensive mining interests near Tucson."

While this suggests it does not throw the fullest light upon the underlying cause for the action of such men as Rose. It is, however, revealed in a Washington dispatch of the same date, wherein we are informed that "Speaker Cannon has a trump card," this being "nothing less than a warning to the railroad and mining interests in Arizona to haul off their lobbies here [Washington] or take the consequences." This dispatch goes on to say: "The consequences of failure to abide by this warning might be serious," as "the railroad and principal mining companies of Arizona are paying taxes on an antiquated assessment which has not been altered for sixteen years." It goes on to say: It was made long before the railroads had attained anything like their present value, and when the mines, which are now paying their owners thousands

of dollars a day were mere pocket-holes." What the Speaker has in mind according to this dispatch, is for Congress to legislate directly for the Territory to compel a correction of these antiquated assessments, so as to place the railroads and the mines on the assessment-rolls at something like their real value. This, however, it appears "would be more objectionable to their owners than joint-statehood."

This, then, is the Ethiopian in the woodpile!

Mr. Mayor Rose and his confrères are not worried that the "spirit of individual liberty is being smothered"; what they fear is that the people of New Mexico, whom they dub "greasers," will insist that these enormously valuable mines, out of which such gigantic fortunes as that of Senator Clark's are being obtained, shall bear at least a part of the cost of government, instead of, as now, practically escaping taxation altogether.

It is not patriotism but pelf which animates these gentlemen. It is not human liberty but human greed they are contending for.

Let us hope that the Speaker will get more light upon the subject. It will be an excellent thing for the country if, not in a spirit of revenge against multi-millionaire mine and railroad magnates (although they deserve no sympathy) but with a desire to see that justice is done to all the people of Arizona, if he will exert the tremendous influence of the Speakership to secure legislation that will compel the railroad and mine-owners to pay their share of taxation, listing their property at its full value. This would probably relieve the other people of Arizona of fully fifty per cent. of the taxes they now pay, while increasing those of the rail

roads by one or two hundred per cent., and those of the rich mine-owners five hundred to one thousand per cent. But to return to blood-and-thunder Rose. This man is mayor of one of the most corrupt cities in the Union. It is a city where the public-service corporations hold complete sway. A city where these exploiters of the people have a free hand. A city where, so far as the equal right to the use of its streets is concerned, human rights and human liberty are nullified daily. Not only does Rose do nothing to conserve these rights, not only does he not protect its citizens in their equal natural right of use, but he has himself been the instrumentality through whom they have been robbed of their streets and turned over to be exploited by J. P. Morgan and his associates.

Instead of inflaming the passions of misguided Arizonans, who do not understand that Rose and all his ilk are using them to pull their chestnuts out of the fire (chestnuts in the form of special privileges and exemption from taxation) let the Mayor of Milwaukee return home and do his duty. Let him but use all the great power of the executive of that city to compel compliance with the law by those who are monopolizing its streets, make them pay taxes on the same basis of value as other citizens have to pay, let him but enforce every ordinance these notorious violators of law are constantly nullifying, and he will be rendering proper service to the people of Milwaukee, and there will be no need to declare that if the public-service corporations do not obey the law the streets of his city should “run with the blood of martyrs as have the gutters of Warsaw!"

Brooklyn, N. Y.

ROBERT BAKER.

The Pageant of the Throne-Powers-The Smelter-Trust-A General Glance at The Trusts (Continued).

PURSUIT OF MONOPOLY.

M ANY good people are deluded into believing that the purpose of the trust is to promote the public weal by bringing down the price of its service or its product for the benefit of its patrons or consumers. Nothing is further from the truth. As an incident to the destructive methods employed to exterminate a rival, the price may fall for certain periods or places. But it is only an incident. The purpose of the trust is always to "water-up"-also to lessen the cost by cheaper methods, yet withal to maintain the price and generally to advance it by controlling the disposition of the product. When trust-prices are discussed, it is misleading to take the price for a short period or at a particular place. The business of the trust is everywhere, and the actual price it charges will show itself chiefly only in long periods and in numerous places. To keep up the price, while lessening the cost, insures large and steady profits; and profits as we know are the chief end of capital.

The more perfect the monopoly the surer is competition cut out, and prices then with a lessening cost are at the easy dictation of the trust, and profits are steady and unfailing. The problem then simply becomes one of markets.

That the principal aim of the SmelterTrust was to destroy competition and to create a monopoly is specifically avowed by its promoters and managers. Mr. Chapman testified before the Congressional Industrial Commission as follows:

The first of this series of articles appeared in the July, 1905, number of THE ARENA.

"The evils of competition having been borne for years by the various smelting interests of the country had convinced the proprietors of those interests that some combination should be effected with a

view to reducing expenses and eliminating such competition. These interests had but no satisfactory arrangement had ever been in frequent consultation (conspiring) that eliminated the competition combeen made for any combined operation plained of. Finally it was universally conceded that the only course open was a consolidation of the various interests."†

If, in the above quotation, "labor interests" be substituted for "smelting interests" and "laborers" for the words "proprietors of those interests," and the word "labor" be inserted before the last word, we would then have an exact statement of the trust dilemma, expressing as well the dilemma of labor.

When labor, however, tries to extricate itself from such a dilemma to cut out competition and to effect a monopoly, we will see in the following chapters some of the obstacles and penalties that confront it.

Ex-Governor James B. Grant, on the board of control of the Smelter-Trust, and who profited by the sale to it of two large smelters, one in Denver and one at Omaha, testified before the Congressional Industrial Commission as follows:

"Q. "The main objects sought by these combinations, according to your method of reasoning, is the limiting of competi

tion ?'

"A. "Yes, that is what I should say; limiting competition and cheapening certain methods of handling the business,

†Report Industrial Com., Vol. 13, p. 93. Report Industrial Com., Vol. 12, p. 195.

Re rher testified

The alles nduene combination in ul. 17 pinion, are to avoid exare and Funcus competition and to ename the tapitalist to get a reasonacie ‚nterest in as nvestment by enlarging ke sapitalization watering the stoes, I would say that when any man is now ing to spend a large part of his Te in vading us an industrial enterprise the int thing to be considered is to get an „nesme from it, and the one cause, in my anove all others that threatens

hat neome, is competition."

Eere is a plain and frank avowal of an economie lemma that is common to both capital and labor. Both are floundering in me mire of unnatural competition. Capital, through the combination of the

ist and the "water" and the monopoly it aforis, has found a way out, but like Nagcieen on his march from Moscow, it is evil take the hindmost" and it ofers no hand to its boasted "handmaid,” but leaves labor to still grope and flounder deeper in the mire than before. This is the unsympathetic selfishness of the trust, and it is plain that Mr. Havemeyer is not

"A. 'Precisely."

"Q. To increase his earnings?' "A. 'Yes, and to keep out competition." "Q"To increase his earnings and to keep out competition?"

"A. "That is about it. Not necessarily to increase his earnings, but to maintain and to keep up the price.'

"Q. There is no difference between the individual and the corporation, each is struggling for benefit?'

"A. Well, there is the proposition presented by Mr. Ratchford [committee*14, p. 197.

17d., pp. 199, 201.

not “give two cents for our ethics.”

OVERREACHING LABOR.

With an effective monopoly once on foot, the trust that enjoys it secures thereby an autocratic power to swing as it will its cudgel of coercion over the head of labor. Read the sworn confession of Governor Grant upon this subject:‡

"Q. In the papers it is stated that by reason of the shutting down of the Durango Smelter-which was in the trust750 men were thrown out of employment, that is, the men at the smelter and miners. This reference is to a strike that is mentioned hereafter.] Is it your opinion that if the individual smelter had not gone in the trust, it would have shut down at that time?

“A. 'I don't know. You cannot tell. As a consolidation we felt stronger than

we did as individuals. The smelter corporation or company is not dangerous, but it has to be guarded in its actions. Not having generally a great amount of money we had to be very careful, but the combination, having plenty of money in its treasury, is more powerful.'

"Q. "Would it not be the natural tendency, having the power to do so, to shut Report Industrial Com., Vol. 12, p. 202.