Gov. Kitchin said there had been so much unfavorable comment on the recent trust legislation of the General Assembly, that he would take advantage of this the first appropriate occasion to briefly discuss the matter, not that he regarded the Legislature as a "trustbusting" one, but to correct some misunderstandings which he had found current. He discussed the power and duty of the federal government over trusts, declaring that no state can wholly destroy the greater trusts which operate throughout the whole country. At most a state can merely exclude them from her borders. In the course of his speech, he said:

Our states have done much, but no state has succeeded in destroying the trusts or in exempting her people from the baneful effects of private monopoly. Even Texas that has advanced anti-trust laws, and whose legislation in a general away is held up for the admiration of our people, still bears the burdens of great monopolies like the United States Steel Corporation, the American Tobacco Company, the American Sugar Refining Company and others which do business now throughout that great state. I said held up in a general way before us, for there seems so far to have been no advocacy of any particular part of the Texas law, which is not already also our law. Indefinite comparisons of the Texas law and our law can hardly be beneficial, and mere criticism without positive and definite suggestion of remedies avail but little. All definite suggestions for strengthening our anti-trust laws [tear] desirable, for our state's legislative powers have not been exhausted to protect the people and her duty is not discharged to the public until every power is exerted for this purpose. Conventions and legislatures will be glad to have every definite proposition to aid in the warfare against unnatural monopolies.

Our laws are still imperfect. The Legislature of 1909 did not sweep the field for comprehensive anti-trust legislation, yet it deserves the congratulations of the people for the progressive step it took against trusts. Critics have endeavored and I fear with some success to make the people think that legislature violated its party obligations, and complaint has been made that the Chief Executive did not raise a row with this coordinate branch of the State Government, composed of able men, responsible to their constituents, such complaint evidently originating from the erroneous idea that the Governor is recreant to his duty in not hauling the legislature over the coals when it fails to enact perfect legislation as measured by the party's principles as he understands them.

Clearly the Legislature did not enact measures entirely effective of the party's general declaration that "private monopolies should be destroyed", nor would it have done so had it enacted the excellent Texas anti-trust law which was reported by the House committee, for the simple reason that with that law in force private monopolies continue to rob Texas of millions of dollars annually. We already have on our books the main provision which made criminal in Texas the operation of the Waters Pierce Oil Company, for it is criminal under our law to divide up territory to prevent competition as did that Company and the Standard Oil Company, in which [tear] was given to the Waters Pierce Company.

A review, however, of affairs will show that the legislature in its recent session in obedience to the party's declaration took the most advanced step ever taken against trusts by any North Carolina General Assembly, and is entitled to the praise of the people for its loyalty to platform, as it enacted into law the party's definite proposition on the subject. The same spirit should be displayed and the same test applied to it that other Legislatures have received. A former Legislature was elected upon a platform denoucning trusts and demanding legislation to suppress them. Such legislation did not reulst. The Governor raised no row with the legislature on that account, and no criticism of his failure is recalled. Our constitution declares against monopolies. The common law is against trusts, and is the law of this state. Our party and its platforms have for years been against them. Failure heretofore of legislatures to perfect anti-trust legislation in accordance with general principles has not always been heralded as a violation of party platforms, and sometimes legislatures that did nothing against trusts have escaped with less criticism than the present one which did much. The withholding of criticism of the Executive and the Legislature heretofore has given an undue weight to it now and rendered it more liable to erroneously impress the public about the present legislature which surpassed its predecessors in making criminal the conduct of monopolies. I am of course, not ignorant of the criticism heaped upon the Legislature of 1907 for its failure to pass the famous subsection "A", but the Legislature of 1909 deserves praise from every critic of the 1907 legislature, for the present Legislature enacted the very proposition that 1907 rejected. It is inexplicable how any one could criticise the Legislature of 1907 for rejecting a claus [tear] made it criminal to have an agreement to put down or keep down [tear] without praising the present Legislature for adopting a clause which makes it criminal to conspire to put down or keep down prices, in accordance with the sections I shall presently quote.

You will not misunderstand me. My position is well known and my views are on record. I am not satisfied with our trust laws. They should be broadened and strengthened, and the machinery for enforcement improved and means for enforcement provided. But believing as I do that our last session of the Legislature greatly improved our laws and serves credit therefor instead of criticism, and having found in various parts of the State misapprehension of what was done, in a mere effort to correct such a wrong impression, I shall recount these facts:

Consider carefully "A", the platform declaration, and "F". I submit to every candid man that if "A" was "Teeth", there is no principle of fairness, no power of reasoning, and no mystery of political alchemy that can make "F" "pink tea". Had the Legislature of 1909 passed "subsection A", it would have been a compliance with this platform declaration, and those who favored it would have been standing on the platform, and "subsection F" is no less a compliance with this declaration, for there is no material or substantial difference between them. But if there be a meterial difference between "subsection A" and "subsection F", which passed, then the advocates of "F" were in the better position, as "F" more nearly and clearly follows the language of the democratic convention, as a [tear]rison undoubtedly shows. It would be difficult to [tear]stance of greater loyalty to a specific declaration o[tear]form. Such fidelity should be commended, not ridiculed. It demonstrated that a Democratic Legislature can be depended upon to carry out the definite instructions of a party platform. It is notice to all that when the people have a clear cut proposition which they want to become a part of the law, they can attain their purpose by putting it into a democratic platform and standing by the democratic nominees. It is remarkable that when some have been criticised throughout the State for voting contrary to their national platform, others have been criticised for voting in accordance with their State platform. It is expected, and I think properly, that upon questions of policy, representatives should vote their party instructions rather than their personal views, unless elected with a contrary understanding. It is therefore unfortunate when representatives are criticised for obeying a platform utterance whether it accords with their personal views or not.

While leaving the prosecution under our law to the Solicitors, the Legislature provided that the Attorney General shall take steps to procure evidence upon affidavit that the law is being violated. Such affidavit may be made upon information and belief, and may be made by any person in the State. The Attorney General will proceed with his duties in such cases whenever any citizen makes the proper affidavit. In addition to "subsection F", quoted above, the other sections make [tear] acts unlawful. 1.- Contracting that purchas[tear] not deal in goods of competitor or seller. 2.- [tear] destroying or attempting to destroy the business of [tear] purpose of thereafter fixing prices. 3.- When ha[tear] any article sold in North Carolina, to try to [tear] lowering or raising price for purpose of increasing [tear] destruction of rival. 4.- Without sufficient reason [tear] price, where there is competition than elsewhere, to injure another's business. 5.- Dividing territory to prevent competition.