Johnstown weekly Democrat. (Johnstown, Cambria County, Pa.) 1889-1916, 1889-11-01
WHAT ABOUT TRUSTS.

There are trusts and trusts in full blast
all over this country, and it looks as
though all branches of business will be
run by them. Such is the rate at which
they are multiplying that this appre
hension seems to be well founded. While
their existence is deplored by so many,
their necessity and usefulness find many
able advocates on the score, both of econ
omy and benefit. 1t is contended that the
prejudice against them grows out OF
general popular misconception of their
nature and characteristics, and iu con-
fusing their legitimate workings with
abuses of them.
What is a trust? Perhaps as coed a
definition of trust as could be given is
that it is kind of an alliance among cap
italists to control prices, or in other words
to monopolize trade. But this defni-
alton is not accepted by its advocates.
They object particularly to the idea i'm
piled by the word monopoly, and yet
their own way of defining it,
really covers and embraces all that this
word implies. For instance, what but u
monopoly is agreement among produc-
ers and venders of certain sort of mer-
camille commodity for their mutual pro-
lection and profit?" 1t is admitted that
it is a wholly selfish arrangement,
without any pretense that philanthrophy
enters into it at any point " which
means that the benefit of parties outside
of its close corporation is never taken
into onsideration. One of its recent de-
fend.rs is compelled to say that " it is
ente' d into because the parties to the
agreement believe that they can, in that
way, largely or entirely eliminate or con-
troll competition, maintain the prices of
their wares, check production, and
make money more easily than they can
without the trust" We are gravely told
it is not mere partnership, nor joint
stock company, nor corporation, nor
corner" nor syndicate, nor pool,
but parlakes, to some extent, of the char
acLeTlSllcS OF tnem all.
Whether its partalzing capacity has ref
erence to the good or bad points of pools,
corners or syndicates, we are not advised;
but inasmuch as its admitted object and
purpose is to eliminate or control COM
petition and thus make money more
easily" the logical inference is that its
parting quality has no reference to
whatever is for the general good in any
of the other kinds Of business organiza-
tions. By capitalists combining their
means so as to control any branch of bus
mess they can throttle and down all COM
petition by pushing individual enterprises
to the wall. And if this is not creating
a e." corner "a full-1ushed monopoly
we would like to know what it is. 1t is
so self-evident that even defenders of
trusts venture an apology for it, by say
ing that after all " competition is, in and
of itself, not an unconditional good" By
thus trying to evade the force of argu-
ments against trusts it is alleged that the
waste of competition is incalculable that
it is burdensomely expensive " costing
the public million of dollars where mo-
nopoly can extort penny"
This bold, unsupported assertion
plainly assumes that with all that is said
against monoplies, they are better, far
more economical for the poor and I'M
provident than unrestricted competition.
Why, in this light trusts are not the
monstrosities common sense people be-
lieve them to be, but are great eleemosy-
nary institutions, conceived and pro-
jected for the special benefit of the poor.
Rich men form these combinations for
the benefit of the general good. Could
assumption go further?
But still further, they are attempted to
be justified on the grounds of risks. AS
there are risks involved in all kinds of
business, 1t Is said that failures in any
business venture would not be so disas-
trous to company as to individuals. In
such a case losses would be born by
several persons instead of by an individ-
nal, and thus be distributed around
among an entire class. RespX this idea
that capitalists form trusts to shield indi-
viduals from financial embarrass-
ments, by preventing them from doing
business is the climax of absurdities.
Finally, it is assumed that only ward
politicians oppose trusts, and that it is
particularly unfortunate that the oppo-
sition to them las taken on political
form, and that politicians of the baser
%,