mit to their dictation, and they may destroy the property of those from whom they have been receiving wages; cotton planters in the south may combine to force higher prices for their commodity, even though they resort to violence that competition may be prevented. All such combinations are but exercise of natural rights, with which the law should not interfere. But when manufacturers or transportation companies combine to stop waste or ruinous folly in competition, they must be checked at once as threatening the community's prosperity.
This confusion of ideas is not confined to the "unthinking"; it is found among those whose prominence in public affairs is a fair presumption in favor of belief that they are thinking men. Organizations engaged in great industries have retained representatives at Washington as well as at other capitals in order to protect their interests by opposing injurious legislation. There is no doubt that they have endeavored to compass the defeat of politicians who opposed them and they have expended large sums of money in printing and postage to influence public opinion—they do not "admit" this: on the contrary, they assert it unhesitatingly and justify their course. Newspapers and politicians profess to be shocked by such avowals and it is said that some members of an investigating committee were stunned by the shamelessness of the "capitalists." One's sympathy goes out to those innocents. Yet such efforts are within the rights, indeed are within the duties of every citizen; certainly they are in every sense as proper for "capitalists" as is the conduct of taxpayers' associations, philanthropists or labor unions when they do the same thing. Nevertheless, it would appear that the labor unions were aiding the uplift of humanity when they endeavored to prevent reelection of Mr. Cannon, who had treated them with contempt, whereas the National Manufacturers' Association was endangering the Republic's stability by its efforts in his behalf. It was thought to be pernicious lobbying when the Hawaiian planters struggled for retention of tariff on raw sugar while the Federal Sugar Company was thought deserving of credit because it sought removal of that tariff; among the many protests against lobbies few were heard against the labor lobby, which has been denounced as the most insidious of all. Senator Lea summed up the matter clearly when he stated that when a visitor disagrees with a congressman's opinions, he is a lobbyist; if he agree, he is an expert. Those who have followed closely the discussions in congress during recent years must be convinced that too many members are afflicted with the omniscience of ignorance and that they are sadly in need of information on nearly all subjects except the local interests of their districts.
But one may ask, how can such conditions exist and how is it possible that men bearing the responsibility of public office can yield to influences so injurious to the common weal? The writer is no mind--
