288 Missouri Agricultural Report. 



modern captain of industry. And you can all remember when a 

 man who could form into one combination a number of competing 

 enterprises was called a captain of industry and had his picture 

 in all the newspapers and magazines as an example to be followed 

 by every young man. He still has his picture in the magazines 

 and newspapers, but the tenor of the article concerning him has- 

 changed in recent years. 



The lawyer who could form these large corporations was held 

 up as an example to the young law^'ers of the country, and his 

 enormous fees for doubtful legal services were given to the anxious 

 and eager public as a choice article of news. That lawyer still has 

 his picture in the newspapers, but it has not been in exactly the 

 same column as it was years ago. 



These conditions came about on account of the fact that we 

 were so busy making money that we were indifferent concerning 

 the methods that prevailed in the world around us. What differ- 

 ence does it make to me, the farmer would say, if I must pay ten 

 dollars more for a piece of machinery than I did a year ago? Am 

 I not now getting eighty cents or a dollar for wheat, while a few 

 years ago I was glad to get forty or fifty cents? Am I not getting 

 higher prices for hogs and cattle than I was a few years ago ? 



The laborer would say, what difference does it make to me if 

 I must pay seventeen cents per pound for beef, where I paid only 

 fourteen cents a year ago? What difference does it make to me if 

 I must pay twenty cents for oil (costing only two cents per gal- 

 lon), while I could buy it a few years ago for fifteen? Am I not 

 making nearly twice as good wages as I was a few years ago? 



And so in this period of prosperity we did much to support 

 the statement sometimes made that the American people are in- 

 capable of moral indignation. 



But this is not all that blinded the people to the principles of 

 the question of the modern trust. In this controversy as to whether 

 trusts were beneficial or injurious, the brightest an dablest minds 

 money could secure were engaged to support the propaganda which 

 had as its foundation the theory that combinations of competing 

 enterprises were good things for the people, because they cheap- 

 ened the cost of production. iTiese arguments were made by these 

 paid advocates of combination, and were offered upon the authority 

 of apparently distinguished sociologists and economists. 



Let me give you one example of these arguments in behalf of 

 the principle of combination written by one of the ablest expo- 

 nents of the modern trust, Mr. S. C. T. Dodd, general solicitor of 



