The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-09-13
The Other Side.

Y ET US NOW turn to the other
side, where perhaps properly the
- burden rests, and consider the OBJ
lection urged by those VINO stand in op-
position to the trusts. These are all de-
rived from the one position they take,
viz. that whatever the occasion for the
trust, and admitting that 1t Is efficient
in reducing the cost of production, yet its
certain and necessary result Is to create
monopolies which in themselves are the
fruitful source of evils great and small;
some of which are already observable.af-
fccting our Industrial social and political
welfare; and that more ana worse must
certainly follow in the train.
IT is of little consequence what the
purpose of the trust is; II is its effect
that concerns us in this inquiry. 1t is
equally unimportant whether the trust
admits or denies that monopoly is "a nee
cssary consequence; that 1t is is so OBJ
vious that denial would avail nothing.
This conclusion finds confirmation alike
i'm experience and the simplest use of
arithmetic. We have trusts which in
clude as many as two hundred different
establishments, which before were in
divdual and independent; some may in
Clude twice that number, the maximum
| cannot state. There are many dis
tinct industries In the country which
would be wholly and entirely absorbed by
u combination that would include so
many as fifty: and such consultations
would manifestly result in placing a sin-
gle management in control of the market
for that particular product True, with
respect to most articles Of manufacture,
they are easily produced at little cost,
and the plants producing like specialties
among them may be counted perhaps by
the thousand; but combinations among
4 Ii. Il
where the number is Few, requiring only
little more time and trouble The
match trust the starch trust, the baking
powder trust, the shoe trust, these and
hundred others that might be named,
show how practicable the scheme is 1t
is nothing to the purpose to say that
some of these have not engrosscd the
market The point is that such results
must inevitably follow, if 1t he true as
claimed that the cost of production is
materially reduced by the operation of
the trusts, If this be true. then, as we
have seen, they are without any excuse
for their existence in any shape what
ever. No matter how numerous the es-
adjustments may be that are engaged
in the production of IA specific article, if
a considerable number of them COnsoli-
date, and thus effect for themselves this
saving in cost the rest will be drawn
into the original combine, or be compelled
| to consolidate Independent of It. so that
| like advantage may accrue to them; 9TH
| Crwse they will be driven out of busi-
ness by the combination that can under
| sell them. Competition means bankrupt
| Cy, when attempted against such odds
| When the specific article is of such gen.
| eral manufacture it may be urged as a
| probable result that there will be severa!
! If not many, combines for its production
| and that competition may be expected
| between them. But we shall escape
any such delrsion, If we but consider
| that the same considerations that led &c
the original combine, viz, the avoidance
| of such expense as was made necessary
| by competition, must lead to a combina'
| ton or consolidation of the combines
themselves. The plain English of it al
| is that the sole aim and purpose Of any
trust is to escape competition, because OF
\ it's eXpensiVeness. If the expense is tC
| continue between the separate trusts
why combine at all?
| With the monopolistic features granted
| let us next consider the specific charge:
preferred against the trusts. First, will
respect to our industrial interests. Her,
the charge rests largely in theory; anC
| yet historical evidence, such as is founC
| in the development of trade and com
| mcrcc, Is appealed to as cOntirmatory
| The specifications are that the system
| is oppressive to the producer Of the raw
| materials, oppressive to the consume
| of the finished products, and in the enC
| must be to labor thus embracing ever!
| class outside the trusts. The raw ma
| telial interests, if such it may be called
is of immense proportion in this country
| our wealth in raw material is beyOn,
| computation. If ii is to be garnered b,
the trusts, rather than by the peopl
who own the material, and by thos
whose labor is required to develop AM
market it, manifestly such result wOu
be unjust and oppressive.
| If the owner have but one market 4
which to sell, he can only get the highes
price that there prevails; If he hav
but one party to whom he can sell, h
must, if he sell at all, accept just wha
1t pleases that party to give. If it b
said that the trust must have the mate
rial. and there is nothing to compel tn
producer to sell, the answer is that h
has necessities as well as other people
that the trust will bid just enough t
make it advantageous to the owner t
sell, rather than retain unproductivC
dead material ON hand. He dare nc
hold for better prices, for the price ca
never be more than it pleases his singl
| customer to pay. Such conditions, az
piled to the manufacturers of the couT
try, with respect to their finished Pre-
ducts, would paralyzc their industries, q
suddenly and as ruthessly as does
heavy frost garden Of spring vegeta
| bles The necessary consequence is
place the man who has to sell, at IN
mercy OF the man who wants to buy
making the necessities of the one dc
tcrmine the price. rather than the want
of the other.