The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-11

Ammunition Company. Now they boast OF
being the only firm capable or turning out
most noteworthy examples or c0mbinatioh'
however, are 10 be found In the Birmlng-
ham staple trades and in the textile indus
tries
There are no combinations In this coun-
try like those named in the foregoing ex-
tract-combinations which control the en-
tire output of the most necessary products
Of the factory They have been attempted,
but in most instances have failed because
of failure to unite all producers in the conf
bination or the starting of powerful COM
petitors tempted by the profits. The BIZ
cycle trust, the linseed oil trust, the salt
trust and several others have gone to pieces
mainly because they could not control the
output. In Great Britain, where the plants
and the owners are so near together that
combination is easy. the trusts which are
trusts in fact are often monopolies The
writer of the article from which the fore
going extract is taken summed up his con-
illusions in the following words:
We thus see in British industry steady
movement toward combination and mOnop-
oily. movement which is the natural out
come of competition, and therefore not
capable of being prevented undone by
law.
Attention is called to the foregoing words:
and monopoly, a movement which is the
natural outcome of competition, and there
fore not capable of being prevented or un-
done by law" And this in free-trade Eng
land! Further testimony of the general
prevalence Of trusts in Great Britain is at
forded by Professor Rogers, an eminent
advocate Of free trade, who delivered a
course of lectures to the University of OK
ford in 1888, which were collected and pub
| Iished in a book entitled Industrial and
Commercial History of England" On Page
| 37S the professor makes the following state
| ment:
Attempts of this kind. under the names
| of ring and corner, have been frequently
| made, but hitherto by private spectators,
| generally with disaster at the end.
| But recently, under the name of trusts in
the United States, or, as in the case of
/ railways, pools and syndicates in the
| United Kingdom, it has been sought to
| dictate or agreement - No attempt
has been made to test the legality of the
| British syndicate, and We are informed that
4
| be extended to coal and iron or that at any
| rate some binding understanding will be en-
tered into by which prices will be regulated
| and profits secured.
The syndicate system had then been ex-
tended to coal and iron, by which produc-
ton and prices were controlled. Ten years
later Professor Rogers in work entitled
''Six Centuries Of Work and Wages" ad-
mits the success of the modern movement
to large combinations in the following Ian
guage:
Even now 1t is doubtful whether competi.
ton is of universal efficacy and whether il
is not more correct to say that where com.
| bination Is possible competition is inopera-
| tive
IT Is not expected that the free-trade pa.
pers will give any of the facts showing that
free-trade England Is the mother Of trusts
and that they cover every important manu-.
featuring industry in Great Britain; never.
theless it is worth while to now and Their
call attention to fact that brands as false
their phrase, Protection is the mother OF
trusts"