skill and energy, indeed, but often also of heartlessness and indifference to the welfare of others. It is part of the great struggle for existence. It follows the law of organic life-the survival of the sharp eye, the swift wing and the keen talon and the merciless beak. And it has resulted just as natural evolution results, in the destruction of lower and feebler forms of existence and in the survival of those only who are best fitted to carry on the work of the world. But this has been accomplished, like the development of organic life, at immense waste and sacrifice. Thousands of smaller creatures have perished to make the food of one. A far greater effort than that which is required for production itself is often expended in the mere fight for a market.

Each year the struggle has grown more intense. By steam and telegraph distant points became united, and the industry which originally feared no competitor outside the limits of its own town was perhaps overthrown by some rival in a distant part of our country, or even beyond the seas. The margin of profit became smaller, the outlay for putting goods on the market constantly increased, vast sums were spent in advertising or paid to commercial agents and travelers, or consumed in the useless reduplication of plants and of expenses of administration, all of which could be saved under a more perfect system. The very thing to be developed by competition-cheap production-was in a measure defeated by the struggle which competition required. The only remedy then was for industries engaged in the same branches of business to unite so as to reduce the cost of production, if not also to increase or maintain the price of the product. The law which led to this is as much a natural law as that which brought about the competitive system itself.

But there are evils incident to these combinations which may outweigh their advantages. When the aggregations of capital become very great, when competition is virtually suppressed, and when the combination becomes practically a monopoly, it may exercise its powers to the injury, not only of competitors, but of the public. It may dictate terms to the world. Whenever there is only a single buyer of the same material, he dictates the price to the producer. Wherever there is a single seller of the finished article he makes his own price with the consumer, perhaps an exorbitant one, and diminishes thereby the numbers of consumers and thus restricts production and curtails the employment of labor and the wages paid for it.

In practical experience, the actual economic evils are indeed less than are generally supposed, far less indeed than those which are theoretically possible. In point of fact monopolies do not

often increase the cost of the product very greatly, since if they do this they will curtail the consumption of their goods too much, or their extravagant profits might often induce new competitors to enter the field. The monopolies which are under the wisest management have therefore kept prices at figures which are not unreasonable, and they often show, as in the case of the Standard Oil Company, and the Sugar Trust, that there has been an actual decrease both in the price of the product and in the cost of the manufacture. But there is reason to doubt whether this diminished cost is due to monopoly, or is indeed anything like as great as it would be under a free system of competition with the improved methods which the progress of civilization continually introduces.

Therefore, while the monopoly may pay somewhat less for the raw material and may charge somewhat more for the product than would be possible under competition, this evil is by no means the greatest which is involved. The restriction of the output and the displacement of labor by these new organizations also occurs, but this is not an unmixed evil when their greater economy is considered. It is of much the same character as that which follows the introduction of labor-saving machines and of labor-saving organizations of industry everywhere.

Indeed, monopoly may often be of advantage to labor organizations. Under the present system a demand for increased wages may fail, or wages may be reduced because the employer cannot afford to pay them without destroying his business, and depriving himself of the power to meet his competitors on equal terms. To pay the higher rate of wages he must carry on his business at a loss, hence he suffers his plant to lie idle.

But a monopoly can always afford to pay the increased wages. It can always recoup itself by increasing the prices of its product. So the only question to be considered is whether labor of the same kind can be procured on better terms elsewhere. The workmen skilled in certain branches of industry are often limited in number, and under proper organization such workmen are likely to receive a continually larger proportionate share of the product.

But the political and social effects of monopoly are far more menacing to society than its economic results. The great consolidations of capital are fast seizing the avenues of power that lead to the control of the government, and are seeking to rule the states and the nation, often through procured legislatures and corrupted officials.

Yet the monopolies are here. A great part of our manufactur

ing industries and a considerable fraction of our commercial business is already in their hands.

When the Sugar Trust controlled 98 per cent of the production of the country it was idle to say that the remaining 2 per cent could offer any substantial competition. And the present tendency is for all these great organizations to draw closer and closer to the ideal of a perfect monopoly, though none of them has yet entirely reached it.

If this present tendency remains unchecked, it is easy to see that each of the important branches of manufacture will be con trolled by a single company, and the people naturally look forward with alarm to the time when in each branch of industry a single monopoly shall control the trade.

Nay, the combining and recombining will not stop even here. A single company is likely to control many branches of industry. The department store already absorbs nearly all the branches of retail trade. The great anthracite coal fields are practically under the control of two or three railway companies, and it is impossible to say that even the wheat fields of the Northwest, or the cotton fields of the South may not in the future share the same fate. The railroads indeed have undertaken many other branches of industry as feeders for their great lines. The summer hotel business seems to be passing largely into their hands, as well as much of the grain elevator business, the shipping and other agencies of transportation. Who can say indeed what branch of industry may not be the feeder for a railway?

As the great nations of the globe are becoming fewer and fewer until now there are four or five at most which control the future destinies of mankind, so the tendency of industrial organizations to aggregate is such that I can see in fancy four or five great companies which shall control practically the whole output of the country.

Nay, since all industries are now indissolubly united, who can say (if the present movement should go on unchecked) that a single gigantic organization may not sometime control all production?

This will be a form of socialism, and yet it may not be at all the socialism which fancy pictures in the dreams of the disinherited.

Socialism may take many forms. The industrial organization of society may be for a time separated from its political organization, but not permanently. Socialism does not necessarily mean equal shares to all in the joint property, or returns. These may be divided according to the services rendered or capital con

tributed either by the actual stockholders or their predecessors in title, just as private property to-day consists of that which a man earns and acquires as well as that which has come to him by gift or inheritance. It is, however, clear that the mass of the people must have a sufficient interest in the co-operative commonwealth to give the structure a broad base and prevent its toppling over. That it should remain in possession and control of only a few millionaires would not long be tolerated. And yet equality might be found as impossible in a co-operative state as under the • competitive system. So long as men are unequal in skill, industry and ability, the greatest prizes will always be won by comparatively few.

Most of us would look with great apprehension upon such a radical change in the social order, although we cannot fail to see that many steps toward this change have already been taken. Our chief apprehension comes from two sources:

First, we realize how inadequate are our government agencies even for the smaller problems which confront us in city, state, and national administration. How utterly impotent then will they be for the management of our whole industrial life!

But perhaps one of the reasons why they are so inefficient at present is owing to the very fact that they are not important enough. The great prizes which the world offers to-day are generally to be found in industrial life, and our best and ablest men will therefore not devote themselves to politics. But if the power of the commonwealth embraces all things, if it becomes the only agency through which men can reach success, our best life must inevitably flow thither.

But the second great objection to the socialistic form of government resides in the fact that men believe that it will be destructive of individual independence, that it will take away a great part of the incentive to exertion, that it will be fatal to the development of character by making each individual, in the words of Governor Pingree, only a single cog or rivet or bar in the great machinery of the state, rather than an independent being with aims and interests of his own. Has this not already been the effect upon the great masses of workmen in many of the vast industries heretofore established? Each laborer has become the producer of an infinitesimal part of some great product. He has been turned from a man into an automaton. Will not this be the case in a much greater degree when all society is organized for the development of a common industry? But I am advancing further into the future than is permitted to human foresight. Of one thing, however, we may be sure, that the present tendency