supposed evil, both are doomed from imbecility in the hour of great need. Here is where we need light rather than heat, for practical experience has by no means answered in the affirmative this query as to the injurious effect on prices and wages. Investigation, if possible, must yet supply the practical data to test economic law in respect thereto. Fortunately, however, as we believe, economic theory permits us to prognosticate, viz., that a potent check is found in the self-interest of the trusts themselves against inflating prices or lowering wages, but that the opposite tendency should be found in any rational and wisely administered trust or combination. This conclusion follows from the two following considerations. Briefly stated, they are: First, any undue advantage taken of the consumer by the superior power of the trusts is bound sooner or later to react upon them detrimentally, and, if not corrected, will finally overthrow them totally. It can hardly be questioned that trusts steady market prices, thus preventing ruinous fluctuations and possibly crises greatly destructive of our industrial well being, and it is generally realized by the trusts themselves, with but few exceptions, probably, that a safe business must be conducted rationally and in conformity with the best principles of legitimate trade. Therefore, we should expect that the folly of raising prices which would react against their prosperity could only be temporary or exceptional. Further, the reduction of expenses by these combinations is very evident. In most instances this has been the producing cause. Competition, by becoming so sharp as to be almost destructive, demands co-operation as a corrective. This is the highest manifestation of the trust. The two poles of industrial activity are fair competition and free co-operation. These must mutually check each other if a wise harmony prevails.

It must not be forgotten that the chief elements of effective competition are complete knowledge and perfect mobility of the competing factors, and that although labor may not possess these two elements equally with capital, that small capitalists usually possess them with great capitalists; hence the effect of capitalistic competition is always powerful if not absolutely perfect, and should result in securing equal returns to last increment of energy employed, that trusts are largely combination of capital to reduce the sharp competition of capital, that the conflict is between capitalists, rather than between capital and labor.

But even when trusts take on their monopolistic or semimonopolistic form, they must conform still under general conditions to the laws of trade. To do this they must offer to society, the consuming public, at least a portion of their profits, and for

very good reasons. Their success depends generally on the magnitude of consumption, and any unfair treatment of the public would arouse such resentment that patronage would necessarily be lost. This can be done by refusing to buy, and further by boycotting the product of the offending trust, wherever found. Even trusts must court public favor by offering a better and a cheaper article, and this they can do best through the magnitude of their production and the superiority of their appliances. Now, as trusts, as a rule, are dependent on increased rather than diminished consumption, public opinion can whip them into line should they demand too high a price for their products, to the end that the legitimate outcome of the trusts must be lower rather than higher prices. The same argument may be applied to wages.

But, secondly, in case the consumer cannot influence the trust in this manner, there is another economic factor that rarely fails in accomplishing the same end, and I believe facts will always bear out this position, if carefully examined. This corrective may be dominated technically the potential competition of capital, and it is a well-known fact that at present a great mass of idle capital exists in the hands of enterprising men ready to enter any specific field of production, whenever the profits of that industry offer sufficient inducement. So that, to avoid this new competition, prices must be lowered or profits shared with the consumer. True, their gains may be for a time concealed, but in these days of enterprise and publicity that is next to impossible. Therefore, are we not justified in concluding that economic law of itself supplies at least these two potent checks against any material permanent rise of prices by the trusts? Where freedom to enter any industry is full and free, and where monopolistic franchises have not been foolishly or fraudulently granted, which is becoming less now every day, individual initiative and competition may be largely trusted to counteract any tendency to raise prices, but must in the very nature of the case force them to the lowest practicable point. The same law would hold in respect to wages. But here, moreover, the combinations of labor and the higher standard of living reinforces the other tendencies.

An additional danger may be mentioned, though variously regarded by its advocates and enemies, viz., that trusts are a long step toward state socialism. It would seem an easy matter to reassure those who fear the socialistic tendencies of trusts. They rather, if anything, lead in the opposite direction, viz., to anarchy, the extreme antithesis of socialism. Should trusts finally become so politically powerful as to take the government by the

throat, then the masses, in the absence of any other remedy, should revolt, and bring about a social revolution. Still, we are rather upon the eve of a social evolution than revolution, for never in the history of the world has the common man counted for so much in politics. No, they need not resort to revolution, but wisely and conservatively operate through economic competition and combination, and finally through legislation, to secure any wise and needed reform. Again, the advocates of socialism should readily understand the difference between the trusts and the socialistic state. Their purposes are diametrically antagonistic; for one is individualistic, or co-operatively individualistic, based upon the egoism of human nature, while the other is altruistic, based on the sacrifice of self. Hence, what under present competitive individualistic conditions proves a success for the trust, which is a co-operation of the most capable organizers, the great captains or leaders of industry, limited in number, so that unity of purpose can be preserved, and all for their personal gain, why should these not succeed? But contrast with this the socialistic program, even the highest and most ideal, where is any ground of hope for success from any analogy? Socialism must organize the whole mass, capables and incapables alike, and not for the welfare of self, but of the whole. Beautiful ideal, certainly, but too angelic for this world of human passions and selfish hearts. Is it too much to affirm that any rational comprehension of the fundamental principles of political economy scientifically based on human nature as we find it, must preclude both the fears of the enemies and the hopes of the friends of state socialism? That is, no logical analogue is found in the trust.

Still, while these various checks upon the trust have been emphasized, we dare not conclude that all men, or even the majority of them, are subject to such checks, for all do not act rationally or even wisely for their own self interest, much less the common good. Until men are controlled from within, they must be regulated from without. Hence, legal compulsion must reinforce public opinion based on economic and ethical law. Legislation, therefore, must not abdicate its function, but at the proper moment and in the wisest manner see to it that trusts, like any other agencies-yea, more so, on account of the power they yield-are not permitted to sacrifice public welfare; that is, place themselves beyond the laws of political economy. Some propositions are self-evident here; all trusts made monopolistic by franchises or public favor should be destroyed by being nationalized or otherwise; freedom of competition must be guar