The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1889-08-31
MoRGANTowN VIRGINIA. SATURDAY, AUGUST 81 1885,

enable it to dictate prices. Its in
fuence on other industries will bt
considered in another and more i'm.
portant relation in my next paper.
But the Standard Oil trust is an
example to our hand. The producer
of petroleum cannot, like the foreign
sugar planter, send this product in
differently, and at the same cost, t
the European or the American mar
ket; nor can he like our farmer, find
numberless other purchasers in the
home market. He is largely de.
pendent-has been at times entirely
dependent-on the Standard combi-
nation to buy his crude oil. Has be
shared in the phenomenal prosperity
of that combination? Has it ever
paid him fairly remunerative prices
for that product, which in itself has
turned into golden streams?
On the contrary, during the high
est tides of its prosperity, his bust
ness has been vibrating between &C
tual loss and lean and beggarly
profits.
ITO strike oil'' was formerly a
phrase implying the sure acquisition
Of great and immediate wealth, but
as the refining business passed into
the grasp of single combination,
the whole oil-producing territory
passed into estate of chronic de-
preston"
And so we are justified in saying
that in it's dealings with those who
produce its raw material the trust
reveals itself wherever it's power and
tendency can have full play in the
character of q true and unmistaka-
BILE monopoly.
THE CONSUMERS OF ITS PRODUCTS.
We may next ask how the trust
has dealt with that larger body, the
general public, who purchase and
consume its products. This ques-
ton have already virtually answer
ed in the paper reciting the enor-
nous profits of each one of the com
binations Neutrality-suspicious. so
far in excess of the possible returns
of legitimate industry as to imply
beyond question the spoliation of
the consumer by the single or over
shadowing producer in the market
Stress is constantly-and especially
in behalf of the Standard trust
laid upon the argument that self-in-
terest will always prompt seller to
content himself with moderate and
reasonable profits in order to secure
the largest range of customers, and
the public is assured that in this
principle it will find protection
against extortionate charges. But
does any one argue that self-interest
impels the owner of patent upon
an article of general use or necessity,
or even, like the Bell telephone, of
general convenience, to content him
self with moderate profits in order
to increase to the utmost the number
of purchasers. The argument has
force only in respect to articles
whose use is voluntary with the peo-
pie, and which they must, therefore,
be tempted to buy. On the other
hand, as long as there is or can be
but one seller of an article which
people are almost or actually COM
PEELED to buy, that seller can and
will sell at price that brings to
him the largest possible returns, or,
in other words, at monopoly price.
When the patent on the telephone
expires and other manufacturers can
supply the market the public will
get telephones much cheaper, while
still paying reasonable profits to
those who make them.
In the case of the telephone the
law of patents has for fixed term
entirely obliterated competition; in
the case of trusts their own success
full combination has more or less
fully obliterated competition. AS
each one of them controls the sale of
an article of general necessity or
convenience, they have thus one and
all become monopolies, and as a re-
suit we see them all-patent and
trusts-gathering their millions by
leaps and bounds.
ANOTHER.
Let me add, in conclusion, that
trust may not only despoil the great
body of consumers by its control of
prices, but may impose heavier ex-
actions upon a part to compensate
itself for temporary favors to others.
The history of the oil trust shows
that it has resorted to this practice,
formerly so common with railroad
companies. At the very time it was
driving competitor in one market
to remediless bankruptcy by selling
it's oils therein at less than cost, it
was recouping it's losses by advan-
cling the price of oil in other locali-
ties where there was no competition.
In this way it waged its wars and
made it's conquests-not at it's own
expense, but at the expense of the
public. have already noted the
same practice in the gas trusts, and
examples might be multiplied from
other combinations but surely
enough has been said to prove that
in dealing with the consumer, also,
a trust is always and everywhere a
monopoly. In my next paper l will
consider the relation of the trust to
labor and to the public generally, in
continuance of this particular line
of discussion. VIM. L. WILSON.
HONORS TO CARLISLE.