of association; but the workingman has nothing but this law to aid him, whereas capital has all of its advantages plus all of the monopolies which are conferred through special privileges that give additional power and strength to the trust. And it is because of this that Mr. Cockran in his otherwise very able speech, was, in my judgment, so fallacious, when illustrating in the manufacture of his chair his self-acting, unvarying law by which wages were distributed regardless of the power or influence of the trades union. Had Mr. Cockran taken an industrial society entirely devoid of special privileges, then he would have proven his case. But he assumed that the law by which wages are distributed operated now in that unvarying and equitable way.

Let us suppose that there is a train of cars loaded with grain to be dumped through a chute into this building and that this chute is made so tight that every particle of grain that goes in at one end will surely be deposited at the other, there is then no flaw from the point where the grain is received to the point where it is deposited. But suppose instead of being perfectly tight this chute had several holes in it known as special privileges through which from 25 to 50 per cent of the grain would leak while in transit. Now, anyone can see that under such circumstances you cannot divide any more grain at the final point of deposit than reaches it. That there are such holes through which industry is despoiled no thoughtful person will deny. They are the monopolies of tariffs, franchises of public utilities, money, patents and land—and it is the possession of these special privileges by the capitalistic trust that justifies public interference.

But I am not in favor of restrictive legislation. Instead of "Be it enacted," I would prefer to solve the problem by "Be it repealed." The restrictive legislation enacted within the past thirty years against corporate wealth has not brought the results intended. Contrariwise, in many instances these enactments have been employed for the suppression of the masses. The belief that our industrial ills can be cured by filling our statute books with restrictive legislation, is delusive, yet everywhere this tendency is taking shape, and everywhere it fails to remove the evils complained of. Instead of cutting the Gordian knot of monopoly and allowing the full play of industrial forces to liberate man from his thralldom, prohibitory legislation is relied upon as the panacea. Instead of crushing the head of the serpent-monopoly-that poisons all the streams of our industrial and political life, we give it full sway and then consume large quantities of restrictive legislation as a means of neutralizing the poison. The result is that society and industry are being

tied up in an inextricable tangle. Rather than to continue thus I should prefer to take out from under these trusts the props of special privileges that give them this undue power to fleece the public.

First of all, I would repeal the entire tariff laws and place the United States upon an absolutely tree trade basis with all the world. This would compel us to revise our entire fiscal system, in the remodeling of which we might place many of the burdens where they properly belong. It would even give the Single Taxers an opportunity to present their views, and if enacted into law would rob landlordism of its power.

I would repeal the 10 per cent tax on banks of issue, and the national banking laws, and would make the issuing of money as free as the air.

While I am not clear as to the utility of repealing all of the patent laws, I believe that the time permitted under the present laws could be reduced one-half to the general benefit of the public.

F. E. HALEY.

Secretary Iowa State Traveling Men's Association.

The commercial travelers of the United States almost to a man are decidedly against trusts and trade combines. In fact, I might state with accuracy, the people in general are opposed to the combinations that have been capitalizing themselves with the sole view of enriching the few at the expense of the masses. Trusts are, in my opinion, a menace to the people. Their principal object is that the army of consumers should pay tribute to the few. They should be placed under federal control, but the law enacted to bring about this state of affairs should be straightforward and not evasive, as it seems to be at the present time. A constitutional amendment, clearly defining the rights of the capitalists as well as to protect the purchasers or consumers, would be productive of the most good to the greatest number. It is self-evident that trusts are looked upon with mistrust by the wage-earner and common people. If such is the case, just to such an extent are trusts a menace to the interest of the country. The question of trusts and trade combines, by concentrating the wealth of the country into the hands of the few, is and has been producing discontent for the past year. Hence, a readjustment of affairs in the near future is absolutely necessary in order that the business interests of the country may be put upon a calm and businesslike basis.

HENRY W. PEABODY.

Merchant, Boston.

Combinations bear most heavily upon the individual producer, or the middleman, who before constituted the machinery of business. Large numbers of heretofore active and successful producers, tradesmen and agents are being frozen out of business by the combinations, and opportunities to build up anew with small capital are very hard to find in any department.

I regard very seriously the advancing strides of combinations, especially the joining of already colossal capital with other multimillions, and in one interest producing the raw material, and its manufacturers and also utilizing it in structural work. Such monopolies by the already rich tend to make the very rich richer, and those before well off, poorer, as their opportunities are shattered.

A monopoly which appropriates to itself all the benefits of its economies and capital, and establishes high prices unduly, will make no friends in the community.

So far only as combination can produce, and so can sell more cheaply than an individual manufacturer, it may be able to better compete with other countries for the world's trade, but the competition would be more national, and in accord with trade customs, in the hands of the larger number of producers, bidding against each other.

There is a tendency in foreign as well as domestic trade for combination to dispense with the middlemen, the jobber, the merchant.

when

Labor organizations can only be regarded as the counterpart of the combinations of capital, when their power is violently applied in strikes to compelling or demanding better wages, they are a menace to society. At other times they are useful to protect the rights of wage earners who as individuals are not influential. Labor organizations will naturally be opposed to trusts, as employers having increased power, and including the element of large capital. The labor organizations are often useful to all employers, in so far as they establish uniformity of hours of labor.

wages

and

There is a tendency of the rapid growth of trusts and combinations to create new allies to the organized labor, in the thousands of men of business who are being thrown out of all business by the absorption of their establishment or inability to profitably continue or to apply moderate capital in a new enterprise. The large numbers of these joined classes will constitute a power

ful agency in opposition to the trusts, for the shaping of legislation, or in the exercise of the franchise.

The contention of labor and the unemployed with great wealth and combined production ought not to be a political issue, but there is danger that it will assume that form.

EMERSON MCMILLIN.

Banker, New York.

Emerson McMillin said in part:

Combination will decrease cost of production. It will benefit society in this, that it will tend to do away with spasmodic and extreme advances in prices, followed by long periods of depression and the discontent of the masses incident thereto.

The consumer and the laborer should be the chief beneficiaries. By combination a solidity is given to investments that makes the investor content with smaller net returns.

In many instances the share capital issued is ridiculously large. The excess of engraved sheets of paper can profit no one, and it may be a source of danger to uninformed investors, and in times of depression the collapse of these excessively capitalized companies will tend to create alarm and distrust in the financial system of the country.

Wages ought to be higher, owing to absence of ruinous competition and consequent disposition of employer to reduce expenses. The condition of the wage-earner should be improved. Regular employment at fair wages is what the wage-earner desires, and is essential to his contentment.

I am not clear in my own mind as to result with middlemen. But even if disastrous, that fact should not condemn combinations if the general result is "the greatest good to the greatest number." The change must come slowly, if at all, and middlemen will adjust their affairs to changed conditions. This has always occurred, and will continue to occur so long as civilization progresses.

I do not regard the tendency to combination with any apprehension on the ground that it does or may create monopolies contrary to the general welfare. But to quiet any apprehension in that direction there ought to be national legislation. If the general government can assume control of a bankrupt's affairs and discharge his debts, it can protect him from being driven to bankruptcy by the strong.

Patents are monopolies; much of the prosperity of our country is due to our patent laws. Gas, electric light and street railways are practically monopolies in most cities. The public would profit by making them absolute monopolies as they are in a large measure in England. The strongest argument in favor of "municipal ownership" is the fact that all possible competition is destroyed and duplication of capital prevented.

Combination will benefit this country in competition with other nations for the world's trade. Goods can be produced cheaper and excess unloaded on foreign markets at cost, if necessary, to prevent shutting down works in America.

Ways in which combinations may and will injure the public will doubtless develop during the next few years. None occur

to me now.

It will be a serious mistake to recognize "class" in any form. Labor organizations or combinations should be, in the eyes of the law, the same as combinations of capitalists. Labor organizations are right and absolutely essential to the preservation of the rights of labor. This, of course, in general and not applying to particular cases. These unions should have the same lawful protection as is given to incorporated capital. Their efficiency would be greatly augmented if they were managed in about the same

way.

Quite positive legislation must be had by Congress. Utter confusion will result if states are depended on for protective legislation. Again, state legislatures are governed by local prejudices. In one state, at least, it is now lawful for the farmer and the stock raiser to form combinations, but illegal for the merchant, the miner or the manufacturer to do so.

JAMES W. ELLSWORTH.

Merchant, New York.

The combining of producing agencies will decrease cost of production and therefore be beneficial.

The amount of decrease in cost of production should increase as progression is made under the proposed changed conditions, the combining of producing agencies resulting in lessening the cost, the same as labor-saving machinery has accomplished.

Regarding combinations as employers of labor, and what should be the effect on wages or the condition of the wage earner, I think the result should be beneficial. The proposition is similar to the question that was raised when labor-saving machinery was first introduced, and the protest of labor still comes to the