nrr
8 Cbe Conservative *
TKUSTS IN OIIKAT BllITAIN.
A Britisher's Views of Trusts Harmless
Unsupported iy Tariff's Evil Results
Of British Subsidies to Shipping.
I have been at considerable pains to
inquire if we had in this country any
thing approaching that alarming species
of trade monopoly which our American
cousins call "Trusts. " In Great Britain
wo have to search for trusts. In Amer
ica they come unsought for and insist
on remaining. "We have , it is true , a
largo number of joint stock industrial
and investment associations to which
the name of "Trust" is indiscriminately
applied but these organizations have
little or nothing in common with the
all-absorbing , price dictating combina
tions which have sprung into such dang
erous prominence on the other side of
the Atlantic. All the evidence goes to
show that we in England , at all events ,
do enjoy , to whatever cause it may be ,
a substantial immunity from those evils
which are associated with American in
dustrial monopolies.
England' * Trusts lire Fo\\ and "Weak.
I do not say there is no tendency here
towards commercial and industrial
monopolies , and to the substitution of
amalgamation for competition in busi
! i ness. Such a tendency is plainly ob
servable. The British trader is probably
as anxious to control the market as his
American rival. But though combina
tions on a large scale have been attempt
ed in many spheres of industry , notably
in the bicycle trade , the salt trade and
some of the textile trades , I am. unable
to discover any case where the prices of
the commodities have been appreciably
raised in consequence. I ought per
haps to make a qualification. At the
present time ( January 1900) ) we are
paying exceptionally high prices for
coal , the best "Wallsend ( London ) being
quoted at 27. ( $ G.50) ) per ton as com
pare with 17.6 ( $4.20) ) this time lost
year. The congestion of traffic on the
railway lines is the excuse generally
given for the abnormal rise. But there
is amongst many outsiders an uncom
fortable suspicion that preconcerted ac
tion on the part of the colliery-owners
may have something to do with it.
What effect a coal combination would
" \ have upon sober English public opinion
the following extract from the Spectator
tater may serve to show :
"Indeed , if there were evidence of
the probability to say nothing of the ac
tual formation of a national syndicate
for the control.of the coal supply in this
country , the case for drastic interven
tion on the part of the state would seem
to us overwhelming. "
The British Parliament , Liberal or
Tory , Lords'or Commons , would not
stand such an audacious monopolist
plot for one week. It would assume
control over the industry and it has
no supreme court to question its de
crees. The formation of a coal trust
was advocated a few years ago by a
late well known colliery owner in the
ostensible interests of both masters and
men. If it should ever appear it will
not long survive its first attack on
British industry.
Results of England's Shipping Subsidies.
But it is in the transport trade that
the attempt to dictate prices somewhat
on the American plan , though a long
way behind it , appears to have been
most successful. The free-trade system
under which England lives and thrives
does not entirely cover the transport
trade. That trade even under the most
favorable conditions tends to develop
monopolistic features. To begin with
it needs a considerable amount of capi
tal to make railways and steamship
lines , and before there can be any ef
fective competition against established
lines the public are not unwilling to put
up with some inconvenience. That is
of course what may be naturally ex
pected. And then the competition
when it comes does not usually come
from a large circle of competitors , as in
the case of industries requiring less
capital , but at the utmost from two or
three. This of course facilitates the for
mation of "rings" and coalitions which
may help to keep freight rates above
their natural competitive level. In the
recent history of the British transport
service enough has transpired to illus
trate the effect of "protection" upon
prices. It matters not whether that
protection be given in the form of
"tariffs , " "subsidies , " or "boun
ties , " the effect is to benefit the pro
ducer at the expense of the consumer
living in the country which confers the
protection. There is no gratitude in
monopolies. The paternal state makes
them a present of say a 60 per cent tariff
on their goods. Not to be outdone by
the state in generosity they forthwith
proceed to give themselves another 60
per cent in enhanced prices , like the en
terprising gentleman mentioned by
Artemus Ward in one of his humorous
sketches , who cancelled the debt owing
by him to his employer in the same
fashion.
Trusts Harmless Under free Trade.
Leaving the region of the transport
traffic and surveying the wide area of
British industry in general , it cannot be
said that we suffer in any appreciable
degree from combinations of producers
to keep up prices. That "trusts" ex
ist in free trade countries as well as in
protectionist countries is undeniable ,
but while in the former , the economy in
production which results from their pro
motion goes to benefit the consumer in
the shape of reduced prices , in the latter
they are identified with high prices to
the consumers and large profits to the
producers. Our American friends are
just now receiving a short lesson in the
principles of free trade. They have
built up high tariff walls in the inter
ests of high prices. If the American
workingmeu want high prices , by all
means let them have them , but surely
it is a little illogical for them to com
plain when the "trusts" and combines
liave raised the prices to the limit
allowed by the tariff. The "trust" in
itself is a harmless institution ; it is the
tariff the element of monoply that
makes it harmful. If they want to
cripple the power of the trusts they
must attack them through the tariffs.
British Not Ashamed of Cheapness.
We Britishers believe in cheapness.
If we could get goods for nothing we
would not be ashamed to take them.
We are not ashamed to swallow the
bounty-helped sugar of France and
Germany which we can buy at 2d (6 (
cents ) per pound cheaper than the re
tail price in the countries where it is
produced. British sugar refiners have
suffered thereby , but the confectionary ,
biscuit , jam , marmalade and sweet
drink industries have received an im
mense stimulus owing to the cheapen
ing of sng-w. With the sugar which
France sends us under cost price , and
the cheap fruit she also sends us we
make jam , which we again export
to her at a handsome profit. If we had
a tariff of 40 per cent on imported sugar
that industry would be all gone and we
should no doubt have a "Sugar Trust"
to control prices as they have in Amer
ica under similar conditions. Under
the natural regime of free trade we
gain in one industry what we lose in
another.
Tyranny of Protection.
The protectionist looks at one trade
alone the one in which he is interested.
It is like looking at only one wheel in a
complex piece of machinery where there
may be thousands of wheels that de
pend on each other. The final result of
the working of the machinery is the
thing to be * considered. We look to the
whole world to supply our wants , and
in a country whose commercial system
embraces so wide an area it is absolutely
impossible for a clique of capitalists to
capture our industries and impoverish
our people.
We are behind America in some forms
of political freedom , but we are far
ahead of her in industrial freedom. The
adoption of the free trade policy in the
middle of the century gave us freedom
of distribution. The free and independ
ent voters of America have surrendered
their industrial freedom and independ
ence. They went to bed thinking that
they had shut the foreigner out , they
are waking up to find that they have
shut themselves in. They are ruled by
a gang of commercial dictators in the
prison house they have built for them
selves. Whether the descendents of the