V.AI
i r
I
Cbc
TKUST SENSE AND NONSENSE.
The trust issue is going to be bettor
understood before this campaign ends.
Both critics and defenders of trusts are
destined to get new light. And heaven
knows they both need it , for never was
a principle of economics so misconceived.
The assailants of trusts are already
making a queer concession. They can
not realize its significance. It is that
only the "criminal" trusts are to be
destroyed. Of course the reasoning that
led to this distinction is plain : First , if
the right of combination is denied , a
labor-union is a criminal conspiracy ;
second , the farmer , the alleged follow-
sufferer of the laboring-man under the
oppression of trusts , is himself forming
trusts with the frankly avowed aim of
hoisting the prices of his products ;
third , there are trusts in the staples and
in manufacturing that work undeniably
for the public good , in that they lower
prices while keeping up or raising wages.
These three facts could no longer bo
ignored even by the scare-mongera who
made bogies of all trusts. Hence the
qualification "criminal. " But , once
admit that there is one single trust that
is not criminal and the principle back of
all trusts combination is vindicated.
Thenceforth all denunciation of trusts
as such falls flat. It remains merely to
discover why some trusts are criminal.
This is whore the trust-fighters are going
to bring up.
On the other hand , the indiscriminate
defenders of all trusts are being forced
to admit that in certain instances the
trust is an undoubted evil. And this
s
I puzzles them. They feel , intuitively ,
that the right of combination is un
assailable outside of an absolute mon
archy. Yet they see or perhaps feel the
oppression of some trust. One of this
class writes U > Puck from Baltimore :
The Editor of Puck Sir :
I have been a reader of Puck for more
tluvu twenty years , and in no other paper
that I know of can I find such sound
cou Qion sense comments on current
events as I fiud in your editorial pages.
I think that your attitude on the trust
question , namely : that its settlement
should be left to the natural laws of
I ? trade , is on the whole a rational one ;
[ | but recent events in this city have caused
me to take a somewhat different view
of the subject. The facts are these : up
to a year or so ago Baltimore had one of
the best street car services in the world.
Thirty odd Hues were owned by four
separate companies , and , as competition
was active , the public was benefited.
Six tickets were sold for a quarter , each
company gave free transfers to its dif-
ferentibrauohos , and the cara were run
at close intervals. The companies con
solidated , and in a very short time the
service deteriorated. Tickets were no
longer sold sis for a quarter , transfer
privileges wore curtailed and the cars
were ran at longer intervals. There is
, i
> \ \
u
no chance for competition from now
companies , as the old companies have
charters giving them control of practi
cally all our streets , and the courts have
decided that these charters are irre
vocable. It is useless to talk about the
sufficiency of the law of supply and
demand to remedy such a condition , as ,
except very remotely , there is no chance
for the operation of that law ; and in the
meantime the public is at the mercy of a
trust. What do you think of it ?
Sincerely yours ,
EmvAHD LRSTEK.
Our correspondent says the law of
supply and demand does not operate
here. But if not , why not ? The demand
is there. And if the supply has been
limited , who did it ? Did the companies
forming the trust limit it ? This is fine.
It is delightful. We hope the street-car
trust of Baltimore will continue to gouge
the people of that town good and hard.
May it employ every known device of
corporate greed to rob and inconvenience
them , and may it invent a lot of now
ones. May it do all that is necessary , in
short , to drive into their stupid heads
that the one and only evil in this coun
try and every other country , monarchy
or republic , in all the time since human
association began , in every phase of it ,
national , state and municipal , is special
privilege.
You make a life-contract to buy your
provisions of two grocers. You bind
yourself never to buy so much as a pound
of tea of any other. Your two grocers
form a trust. Why shouldn't they ?
They are in business to make all the
money they can , and you have parted
with your right to trade with anyone
else. They agree to put up prices on
you. Yon are at their mercy , but who
put you there ? And you whine about
the trust evil , instead of seeing that the
only evil in the case is your own criminal
asininity in making such a contract.
How long would the street-car trust of
Baltimore bo a "criminal" trust if it did
not have its special privilege ? if , in a
word , it had to compete for this privi
lege with good service and low prices ,
precisely as the dry-goods dealers and
grocers of Baltimore have to do.
Trusts cannot destroy competition.
Competition can never be more than
artificially limited , and only the people
themselves , by their own free acts , can
do oven that. They may do it by part
ing with franchises , as in Baltimore.
They may do it on a larger scale by
maintaining a protective tariff which
gives special privileges to a few manu
facturers at the expense of the whole
people ; or they may do it as in New
York Oity by giving the special privi
lege of "governing" them to a political
trust. The "people" have never been
robbed without their freely-given con
sent. Wherever you find an oppressive
trust be sure that it rests on a special
privilege freely granted by the people ,
ff-K
either in the way of a franchise , a sub
sidy , a tariff-schedule or a monopoly
bestowed at the ballot box. This is the
cause of all trust evils , and the effective
remedy must go to the cause and not
trifle with unrelated phenomena or sur
face indications. The principle of com
bination for economy will prevail
increasingly because it is the expression
of a natural law in economics. No law
of man can do more than temporarily
pervert it. The real evil will bo
remedied when its nature is understood.
The trust that does not rest on special
privilege may or may not thrive. It is
subject to every menace of competition
that the individual business man is , and
it enjoys positively no immunities that
are denied to him. In so far as its
profits are proportionately greater its
risks will bo found proportionately
greater. The economic laws are the
same whether applied to one man with
a capital of one hundred dollars or to
twenty men with a capital of twenty
millions. And further , the special
privilege is just as iniquitous when
enjoyed by the ono man as when enjoyed
by the twenty. It only becomes more
apparent in the latter case. It has taken
the growth of trusts in this country to
show its iniquity ; but there was just as
much injustice in the days before trusts.
Only it was too much scattered to attract
attention. The stoutest republican
papers wo know of are now declaring
that the tariff-privilege must bo with
drawn from the trusts. It will take but
a little more thinking to show them that
it was just as unjust to scatter the bene
fits of that privilege among the same
individuals before they formed them
selves into trusts. And we say , blessed
be the name of trust if it will bring the
people to their senses ! Puck , Wednes
day , May 23 , 1000.
JVITEUAKY NOTE.
"The Burden of Christopher , " is the
title of one of the latest additions to the
increasing volume of fiction having for
its theme questions of industrial reform
and the ethical aspects of economics. It
is the work of Florence Converse , the
author of "Diana Victrix , " and will bo
published soon by Messrs. Houghtou ,
Miillin & Co. It is the story of a young
man who succeeded to his father's manu
facturing business and endeavored to
introduce into the conduct of the enter
prise profit sharing , short hours , and the
maximum wage. It shows how ho is
affected by competition made possible
by the payment of low wages and the
requirement of long hours , -and the
temptation to which ho is exposed. The
difficulties of the problem are reali'/od
and dealt with in an evident attempt at
fairness , but with a very clear feeling
that the competitive system and the
Golden Rule cannot be harmonized.
The book has the additional interest of a
well-sustained love story.
