impressed by the marked absence of careful presentation of facts and rational discussion of the case. There seems to be no attempt to apply economic principles or recognize the great law of societary evolution. The only hint thus far of a policy to be adopted is the proposition of Mr. Bryan, which is that Congress pass a law forbidding all corporations to do business outside the state in which they are incorporated without a license from the federal government. It is difficult to imagine a gentleman who is about to be for the second time a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, seriously making such a proposition. Yet he recently presented this to the Nebraska Democratic convention, and repeated it to this conference. This is so contrary to the spirit and traditions of democracy, which is usually opposed to any trade restrictions whatever, and so contrary to the American idea of free intercourse between the states, and so contrary to Mr. Bryan's previous declarations, that one has difficulty in taking him seriously. If this is really the best that his mind can suggest on the subject, it is a depressing gauge of his statesmanship. It would hardly be possible to invent a proposition that would be more fertile in creating corruption, injustice, favoritism and business demoralization. A license might be granted. by one administration and refused by another, for purely political reasons, which would be equal to confiscating the property of the corporation, since it would destroy its business value. There is not a single aspect of this proposition which is not surcharged with economic and political iniquity. It partakes neither of economic sense, political wisdom, fair statesmanship, nor even party shrewdness.

It is not to be assumed, however, that large corporations are always wise, or good, or fair. They are born of the same spirit and partake of the same attributes as the small business venders. Their main ambition is to make profits. It is the duty of the state, therefore, to see to it that the conditions shall be such as to make dishonesty, unfairness, oppressive dealing, difficult and as impossible as any other offenses against the welfare of the community. This cannot be accomplished, however, by the petty nagging and corruption-creating license-granting proposed by Mr. Bryan. The federal government if it acts at all should act in exactly the other direction. It should surround industrial enterprise with the maximum freedom and the maximum protection to all, and no uneconomic privilege to any.

To this end it might be well for Congress to enact a law empowering the government to grant national charters to corporations, which should give them the right to do business over the

entire territory of the United States, against which no state should have the right to interfere. This would be economic, in that it would give the market of the entire country to every business enterprise. National charters could have the proper qualifications subjecting the corporations to a certain supervision and compelling annual reports to be made. Second, it might also be provided that companies using a public franchise, like railroads, should not be permitted to make uneconomic discriminations in their rates of traffic, that they should be subject to public accounting, and that all contracts with shippers should be accessible to all other shippers. The general influence of publicity and inspection by the national government, coupled with the corporations' protection in its right to do business throughout the United States, would tend to create a wholesome influence around corporate conduct. While affording corporations the full support of the national government in their business rights, it would free them from the petty uneconomic nagging of partisan legislation in the different states. It would carry out the true idea of protection that the American market should be open to every American producer and that the interests of the laborers and the public is safeguarded by the national government; at the same time leaving the essential features of business to be determined. by the free action of economic forces, which are more permanent, more sure and more equitable than the wisest statutory enactment would ever be.

GEORGE R. GAITHER, JR.

Attorney-General of Maryland.

The day's program was closed by the reading of a paper by Attorney-General George Gaither, Jr., of Maryland, on "Maryland and the Trusts," who said:

The phenomenal growth of trusts, as the consolidations of great business interests into central corporations are currently designated, has excited the deepest interest in the minds of the people of this country. The meaning of this tremendous change. in the economic relations of the nation is being earnestly considered by every thinking citizen, and some effective remedy for the evils which the growth of this new system threatens to produce is eagerly looked for. It is peculiarly fortunate that this new problem has developed so rapidly that it has not as yet been complicated by political antagonisms, and no partisan spirit

should be allowed to enter into the present serious discussion of the great question. The evils attendant upon the present and the threatened development of these combinations in the manufacturing, producing and transportation interests of the country are universally recognized. For four hundred years the English-speaking races have abhorred monopolies, and since the reign of the Tudors every bill of rights has prohibited the sovereign power from granting any privileges in trade or commerce which were in their nature exclusive and preventive of competition. There is scarcely a constitution of a state of the Union which does not contain this prohibition, and in the constitution of Maryland it is expressly stipulated "that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered." Abhorrence of monopolies is therefore one of the most deep-seated convictions of the English-speaking races. Our modern form of monopolies differs, however, most radically from the form which our ancestors fought against. Ancient monopolies owed their existence to the exclusive privileges with which they had been invested by the royal prerogative. Modern monopolies or trusts claim no protection from the law, on the contrary they simply ask that they shall not be interfered with, relying upon the crushing power of the exclusive privileges, which their own control of great aggregations of capital has obtained, for their flourishing existence. The old monopoly was a creature of the law, the modern trust seeks to establish itself without legislative assistance, and in many instances in defiance of express enactments. It is manifest, therefore, that present constitutional prohibitions against monopolies do not touch the modern type of these dangerous elements in the business world- that a prohibition on the sovereign power from creating an exclusive privilege in business cannot prevent such privileges from being exercised when acquired by means independent of the sovereign itself. We must consequently look for the machinery to properly deal with these new creations of modern industrial life in new legislation applicable to the new phenomena, and not in any attempt at adaptation of old principles which were meant to apply to practically opposite conditions.

Before considering the remedial legislation which should be applied to these new monopolies in business, it is of paramount importance to determine whether the development of those combinations, in their colossal proportions, is due to sound economic laws. Whether their growth is the result of the evolution of modern business conditions, or of a mania for manipulating the

possible profits of a combination of conflicting interests so as to create an aggregation of fictitious wealth and unload its shares upon a speculative public. If the latter view of the origin of trusts is correct, the country need not concern itself much about remedial legislation. The inexorable law of economics that values must inevitably find their true level can be safely relied upon to disintegrate and destroy the false combinations which have been formed, and the creation of trusts may be regarded as only a temporary disturbance of the business world.

But is the tendency of all economic undertakings, under the well recognized laws of modern business affairs, toward a disintegration of business enterprises into smaller establishments, or to a concentration under greater and ever greater combinations? A casual observation of the tendencies of business conditions for the past forty years must convince everyone of the trend of economic forces, and furnish unanswerable proofs of the sources from which our modern colossal combinations have flowed. Before the late Civil War the tendency of the numerous small railroad corporations throughout the country to consolidate into larger companies was manifest, and these corporations have since that time been merged into a few great trunk lines, which lines by traffic agreements and pools have practically been united in a common undertaking. Then, too, manufacturing interests have been concentrated and combined. Factories have been placed in close proximity to the raw material which was to be used, until the great corporations engaged in producing the finished products of industry have owned practically every factor entering into their business. So, too, the shoe manufacturer and clothing manufacturer have sought through their own stores to place their products in the hands of the consumer without the intervention of any third parties. The consolidation of gas companies, street railways and electric companies in our municipalities, or their agreement as to price or territory (which is practically the same. thing), are experiences with which we have been familiar for many years. Whilst the great department stores which have developed in every city to their present proportions have demonstrated the economies and conveniences which the public enjoys from a concentration and consolidation of interests. The savings in the cost of production by the cutting down of competing expenditures, the economies of purchases in great bulk and of transportation, are realized by everyone, and the saving in the cost of the article to the consumer from these new channels of trade is universally recognized. Such has been the tendency of business methods for many years.

We have viewed consolidation and concentration in all of these manifold phases of industrial and commercial life for many years with complacency, and in most instances with satisfaction. It is only when the tendency reaches the acute stage, and a consolidation of the great businesses which deal in the necessaries of life, and with the callings in which we are vitally interested, threaten us with a great economic revolution, that the country becomes aware of the dangers which are threatening. In the first paroxysm of fear the cry is raised that this tendency of modern business life must be checked, that these combinations must be destroyed, and men must be forced by legislation to return to the business methods and ways which their intelligence has discarded. As well might we attempt to turn back the forces of nature as the forces of economic social conditions. It would be as reasonable to endeavor by legislation to restore the days of the stage-coach, or to prohibit electricity from usurping the sphere of steam. The attempt of ignorant bigotry to compel Galileo to recant his masterly exposition did not prevent the earth from revolving about the sun. The truth is rapidly dawning upon humanity that co-operation is the highest form of industrial activity that civilization can develop. When this great economic axiom is being accepted by the capitalists of our nation, it is imperative that the great working masses should not blindly oppose its adoption. Competition is no longer the life of trade, it is a destroying force to those engaged in it. Then, too, the country should profit economically from the great benefits which these combinations and consolidations must confer. The favorable conditions under which the production of commodities will take place must minimize the cost price of the finished article, and enable the consumer to enjoy at least a percentage of the saving. The use of the most approved machinery, and of the most scientific methods which the best intelligence can devise, necessarily minimize the amount of human labor which is to be expended, and at the same time insure greater purity for the product. The stability of business which will be the outcome of the new order of things will be of lasting benefit to the country. Under the competitive system men will sell to firms of doubtful credit rather than be deprived of business, and the solvent merchant is always at the mercy of a cut in prices by his recklessly insolvent neighbor. Under the new system the thousands of active country merchants, who cover every hamlet of our great continent with their wonderful distributing facilities, will be able to purchase their standard articles at a uniform price, and one which they can reasonably rely upon being maintained. The