off
ft
mm
GEORGE W. BERGE, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER
Volume 18
Lincoln, Nebraska, January 25, 1906
Number 36
Sop
rente Justice Holmes Declares
in FaVor of Monopoly
The February Cosmopolitan contains a symposium of answers
by distinguished men to several questions regarding great wealth.
The most remarkable answer is by Oliver Wendell Holmes of the
United States supreme court, The reply is not remarkablo because
of its wisdom, but because it shows to what lengths one of our su-
prcme judges would go in upnoiuing ine claims 01 privilege.
The first question asked by Frederick Upham Adams, who pre
pared the symposium, was: "The wealth of our American capi-
talists is now conservatively estimated at from $100,00,000 to
$500,000,000. Can a man render to his country or to mankind
a service which will entitle him to so great a reward ?" The brief (st
answer to this question was by President Charles W. Eliot of Har
vard University, who said: "No, but he can render services for
which money cannot pay." As if echoing this reply, and then ex
plaining it, Jack London, the author and socialist, says: "No, the
sum of the remuneration to all our patriots and statesmen from the
beginning of our history is not so large.".
The second question was: "Does the possession of a billion
dollars in the hands of an individual, constitute a menace to the
republic?" Then followed questions as to bequeathing great for
tunes, as to the income and the inheritance tax and as to municipal
and state ownership, .,
With Chancellor E. Benjamin Andrews of tlic Nebraska Uni
versity, who is among those replying to the questions, Justice Holmes
believes that it is immaterial who holds the title to wealth.- His
point of view is expressed in these words:
I conceive that economically it does not matter whether you call Rocke
feller or the United States' owner of all the wheat in the United States,
if that wheat is annually consumed. by the body of the people; except that
Rockefeller, under the illusion of self-seeking or in the conscious pursuit
of power, will be likely to bring to bear a more poignant scrutiny of the
future in order to get a greater return for the next year. If then, as I
believe, the ability of the ablest men under the present regime is directed
to getting the largest markets and the largest returns, such ability is
directed to the economically desirable end;
The Independent believes that it does matter greatly who holds
the title to thcvwealth of a country. It is conceivable that one man
niight hold title to all the wealth of a country. Would such a con
centration of wealth be no menace to the liberty and happiness of
80,000,000 in this country? Justice Holmes seems to think that
the only question involved is whether the people would get enough
to eat. In the last days of the Roman republic the mass of the people
obtained enough for their subsistence. Even in Russia most of the
people eat every day. In Russia power is concentrated into the hands
or a lew. wuisiue mis lew me peopic are in ignorance; iney are
unclean, unhealthy, unhappy, enslaved. That is the result of con
centrated power, and concentrated wealth is concentrated power.
Let a Rockefeller acquire all the Avealth of the United States
and the people of the United States would Ik; in greater misery and
slavery than are the people of Russia. Progress would come to a
standstill. Only those would succeed who paid tribute to Rockefeller
and gained his favor. Individual incentive being gone, art, science,
education and industry would decline, or would thrive only in propor
tion to the interest taken in them by one man and then under the
guidance of his favorites. Is it likely that the one man would dare
to be interested in anything requiring education? Would by not
adopt the course of all iiutocruls preserve his power by keeping the
masses in ignorance and servitude? If the masse became intelli
gent there would bo revolution, bloodshed and a redistribution of
wealth.
If will be Mtn that the views of Justice Holmes Kan naturally
to the ereatit.il of nit aldnfe government. Men who think alotuz
the lines indicated by Justice Holmes do not distinguish between
the p.wbility of acquiring great wealth by special privileges and
th ' isibilitv of acquiring great wealth when special privileges
icld. To prevent concentration of wealth it is necessary to
d.gi.uy special privilege. Justice Holmes, however, would arguo
that concentration of wealth is a natural evolution. If you point
out to him that it is a menace to the republic he is apt to say with
"a smile of slow disparagement' that only such a government sur
vives as is fit to survive. If concentration of wealth leads to absolute
government the inference is that absolute! government is the fittest
government in the long run.
Can concentration of wealth Iks prevented? Is it the natural
result of evolution ? The answer is that all our immensely rich have
; made their fortunes by privileges denied to others. If Carnegie
had not been favored with railway rebates he would have been unable
to monopolize the steel business and finally turn the industry over to
.the United States Steel Corporation, which he controls. If Rocke
feller Had not been favored with railway rebates and otherforms of
railway discrimination he would not have been able to monopolize
the oil business and would not "now bo a billionaire.
If any doubt remains in the mind of the reader that Justice
Holmes favors monopoly, let him. read the .following excerpt from
his letter to Mr. Adams:
But it seems to me that if every desirable object were in the hands
of a monopolist, intent on getting all he could for it (subject to the limita
tion that it must bo consumed, and that it might not be wantonly destroyed,
as, of course, it would not be) the value of the several objects would be
- settled by the intensities of the desires for them respectively, and they
would be consumed by those who were able to get them, and that would
be the ideal result.
In other words: A monopolist is abb; to fix prices. If the de
sire for an object increases the monopolist advances the price, not
inVi'oportion to the increase in the desire for the object, but in accord
with his own desire to get th greatest amount of profit. This always
leads to the' following result a monopolist prefers a restricted
amount of business at a high price to an unrestricted amount at a
low price, and then, as our Justice 'Holmes says, goods "would be
consumed by Ihose who were able to gel litem, and lhal would be the
ideal result."
Think of it! The ideal result is obtained when every object
is in the bauds of a monopolist to do with as he pleases.
After these illuminating remarks Justice Holmes expresses the
belief that the power of directive intelligence as a creative force in
production has been minimized by those who dwell upon the claims
of labor as a" producer.
Justice Holmes makes himself amusing when, confronted by
the growing demand for a more equitable distribution of wealth,
he otFcrs as a remedy this: " should like to see him (the rich man)
prohibited from giving great sums to charities which could not le
clearly justified as long-sighted public investments."
, . s t4
Cling to Flimsy Arguments
'I oppose municipal and government ownership because cor
porations do .such work cheaper and U'tter, and our government is
unfit to conduct such Hrations.M
These words express the views of President. Klhl of Harvard
University. Kike most men who hold similar views, President Eliot
Ulieves our government, whether city, state or national, incurably
corrupt. Tbo.se who advocate municipal and government ownership
contend that the cause of corruption is private ownership. The aver-