suffer disastrous results unless they organize and federate to protect and promote their mutual interests.

"In this combination and concentration of wealth the possessors permit no sectional or state lines to interfere with their power, and it therefore behooves the toilers, the wealth producers, to unite and federate regardless whether they are located East, West, North or south; irrespective of sex, politics, color or religion. The hope of the workers, the prayer of all our people, for justice and right, and the perpetuation of republican institutions lies in organized labor.

"Recognizing these essential truths the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor appeals to all wage-workers of whatever trade or calling to organize unions where such do not exist, to join those already organized, to form unions and. international unions of their respective trades and callings, and to affiliate in one common bond of labor upon the broad platform and under the proud banner of the American Federation of Labor.

"In calling upon the workers to unite and federate we aim to do no one wrong, but establish justice for all."

What conclusions may be reached from past efforts to prohibit combination?

"The attempt to prohibit combination has proved futile, and has simply driven the competing concerns into closer consolidation. Had it been successful it must either have retarded the development of modern business and the utilization of modern methods requiring concentrated management of capital, or it must have subjected all of our large industries to constant fluctuations in their scale of prices, which would have been hardly less disastrous to the consumer than to the investor."—"Economics," by Arthur T. Hadley.

How may the ascent to the climax of cutthroat competition be portrayed?

"There is every reason to believe that with a diminution in the number of competitors and an increase of their size, competition grows keener and keener. Under old business conditions custom held considerable sway; the personal element played a larger part alike in determining quality of goods and good faith; purchasers did not so closely compare prices; they were not guided exclusively by figures; they did not systematically beat down prices, nor did they devote so large a portion of their time, thought and money to devices for taking away one another's customers. From the new business this personal element and these customary scruples have almost entirely vanished, and as the net advantages of large scale production grow more and more attention is devoted to the direct work of competition. Here we find that it is in precisely those trades which are most highly

organized, provided with the most advanced machinery, and composed of the largest units of capital, that the fiercest and most unscrupulous competition has shown itself. The growing scale of the business has intensified and not diminished competition. The endeavor to secure safety and high profits by the economies of large scale production is rendered futile by the growing severity of competitive process. Each big firm finds itself competent to undertake more business than it already possesses, and underbids its neighbor until the cutting of prices has sunk the weaker, and driven profits to a bare subsistence point for the stronger competitors. So long as the increased size of business brings with it a net economic advantage, the competition of ever larger competitors whose total power of production is far ahead of sales at remunerative prices, and who are therefore constrained to devote an increased proportion of energy to taking one another's trade, must intensify the cutthroat warfare. The diminishing number of competitors in a market does not ease matters in the least, for the intensity of the strife reaches its maximum when two competing businesses are fighting a life or death struggle. The reward of victory over the last competitor is the attainment of monopoly."—"The Evolution of Modern Capitalism," by John A. Hobson.

What, then, seems to be the law of limited competition, the law of the survivors?

"An increased intensity of competition among those who handle the large accumulations of capital. This is contrary to the popular view. It is commonly assumed that the more competitors you have, the greater will be the intensity of competition. But in actual experience there is no competition in the world so intense as that which prevails between two highly organized bodies that stand opposed to one another. In the old days of small concerns there was much more slackness of management, and much larger profit per unit of product, than we find today. It is proverbial that the largest houses can make the closest calculations in selling goods at a slight market above expense, and competition is generally strong enough to force them to make these calculations closer than would have been deemed possible a half century ago-in other words, to keep down profits."-From "Economics," by Arthur T. Hadley.

What kind of industrial leaders does combination bring to the front?

"There is a process of natural selection of men who have ability to manage capital. Under this system we have not simply a selection of the strong and an elimination of the weak, nor a selection of the industrious and an elimination of the lazy, but a selection of the prudent and intellectual with an elimination of the reckless

or emotional. The moral character of the employers thus developed presents a mixture of good and bad qualities. The control is placed in the hands of men who are enterprising and efficient, but often narrow and unscrupulous. They possess sagacity which enables them to deal with the market, they often fail to possess that broader sagacity which would enable them to deal equally well with those in their employ. The danger of this deficiency is greatly intensified by the possibility of speculating with borrowed capital, and gaining control of industrial enterprises by transactions which are virtually gambling."-From "Economics," by Arthur T. Hadley.

How big can a trust grow?

"The size of the business unit of maximum efficiency must depend upon the capacity of the head of the business unit, upon the nature of the particular business, and upon the progress which, at the given moment, has been made in the methods of organization. Whenever business outgrows the capacity of one man to maintain unity, the danger point is reached. Men differ greatly in the generalship required for the management of a vast business, and unity is maintained in some businesses far more easily than in others. It is quite possible that with a division of the railways of the United States into suitable geographical areas, each with a large measure of autonomy, a unified management could in a general way be exercised over them all. The size of the business concern in manufacturing over which unity can be exercised is, so far as can be seen, much smaller; and still smaller is the mercantile establishment over which unified control can be exercised. Vastly smaller in agriculture is the size of the business unit over which unified control can be exercised."-PROF. RICHARD T. ELY.

"The man of really great executive ability knows so well how to organize his business that men of inferior capacity, working under his system, even though only upon salaries, are enabled to do better and more careful work by far than the same men in an independent position, where they are unable to consult to advantage men more skilled than they. One chief gift of a great executive is the power to select and direct subordinates."-"The Trust Problem," by PROF. J. W. JENKS.

"Without ignoring the fact that the competitive system plays a noble part often in selecting for industrial society the great leader, it is still true that one of the chief wastes of competition is found in the fact that the separate establishments are mostly in the hands of mediocre men, who, unable to effect the savings that come from the most skillful organization or from a judicious forecast of the market, lose money for their stockholders without any saving to consumers from low prices."-"The Trust Problem," by PROF. J. W. Jenks.

MONOPOLY IN HISTORY AND LAW.

III.

How early in English history did combinations need restraint by the king?

As early as the reign of Edward VI, 1537 to 1553, is found an "act against regrators, forestallers and ingrossers.

What was a regrator?

A forehanded speculator who got control of merchandise, provisions or live animals at a fair or market, with the intention to sell them where he bought them, or in a like place four miles from there.

What was a forestaller?

A man looking for more than his share of the market in much the same way. He would buy goods on their way to market, or dissuade people from bringing them in, or persuade them to raise the price when they put them there.

What was an engrosser?

Of the same class with the two others. He would buy or contract for large quantities of provisions, even grain in the field, in order to get a monopoly and fix his own price.

What happened to such a speculator on conviction?

On first conviction he was locked up two months and forfeited the goods; on second, six months and double the goods; on third, "every such person shall be set on the pillory in the city, town

"The question is not whether monopoly is to continue. The sun sets every night on a greater majority against it. We are face to face with the practical issue: Is it to go through ruin or reform? Can we forestall ruin by reform? If we wait to be forced by events we shall be astounded to find how much more radical they are than our utopias. Louis XVI waited until 1793 and gave his head and all his investitures to the people who in 1789 asked only to sit at his feet and speak their mind. Unless we reform of our own free will nature will reform us by force as nature does. History is the serial obituary of the men who thought they could drive men."-Henry D. Lloyd in "Wealth against Commonwealth."

or place, where he shall then dwell or inhabit, and lose and forfeit all the goods and cattle, that he or they have to their own. use, and also be committed to prison there to remain during the king's majesty's pleasure."

How have monopolies always come?

From power-in earlier times from kings. They came from the source of power to strengthen that power.

How may the monopoly of kings be defined?

"A monopoly is an institution or allowance by the king by his grant, commission or otherwise to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, of or for the sole buying, selling, making, working, or using of anything, whereby any person or persons; bodies politic or corporate, are sought to be restrained of any freedom or liberty that they had before or hindered in their lawful trade."-LORD COKE.

What sovereign was specially generous with monopolies?

Elizabeth. Hers had been a great reign, and she was much indebted to the men of all sorts who helped her make it so. She lacked money to reward them appropriately, so, in the words of the historian Hume, "she granted her servants and courtiers patents for monopolies and these patents they sold to others, who were thereby enabled to raise commodities to what price they pleased, and who put invincible restraints upon all commerce, industry and emulation in the arts. It is astonishing to consider the number and importance of those commodities which were thus assigned over to patentees. Currants, salt, iron, powder, cards, calfskins, fells, pouldavies, ox-shins, train oil, lists of cloth, potashes, anise seeds, vinegar, sea coals, steel, aqua vitæ, brushes, pots, bottles, saltpeter, lead, accidences, oil, calamine stone, oil of blubber, glasses, paper, starch, tin, sulphur, new drapery, dried pilchards, transportation of iron, ordnance, of beer, of horn, of leather, importation of Spanish wool, Irish yarn. These are but a part of the commodities which had been appropriated to monopolists. When this list was read in the house (of parliament), a member cried 'Is not bread in the number?' 'Bread!' said every one with astonishment, 'Yes, I assure you,' replied he, ‘if affairs go on at this rate, we shall have bread reduced to a monopoly before next parliament.' These monopolists were so exorbitant in their demands that in some places they raised the price of salt from sixteen pence a bushel to fourteen or fifteen shillings. Such

It is not a verbal accident that science is the substance of the word conscience. We must know the right before we can do the right. When it comes to know the facts the human heart can no more endure monopoly than American slavery or Roman empire. The first step to a remedy is that the people care. If they know they will care.-HENRY D. LLOYD in "Wealth Against Commonwealth."