Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-11-12
THETRUST IN ENGLAND
AxALaAMATIoN OF SOAP MAX
ERs ALARMS THE PUBLIC.


GkS AxAAAAS TIE 1O0AxNs
From the London Spectator.
The word trust has an iil-omened sound
| In English ears, and our prejudice against
the thing has a true instinct at the back OF
1t. That instinct Is no less than the love
Of individual liberty. OF freedom for the
| citizen to regulate his private life In the
| way he pleases. The ordinary man wants
to buy a wine or to burn an oil because
he likes it. not because it il the only one
which the retailer will sell to him. And
he wants to pay q fair price for It. q price
regulated by a reasonable competition. and
not the fancy figure which q monopoly can
dictate. Hitherto he has looked on the
great American combines" with suspicion
and dislike. coupled with pious thanks
giving that such exetics could not flourish
on these shores. For, whether he calls
himself free trader or a protectionist, he
has never believed that the evils of the
ed to England. He may be excused, there
fore, for growing nervous at the news
which has filled the papers during the past
fortnight Of the formation of q great COM
of England Mr.. Lever of Port Sunlight.
liberal member Of parliament. an en-
thusiastic free trader. and q man widely
known as the founder Of a model Industrial
the chief British soap-making firms into
one concern.
Properly speaking. It is not an ordinary
combination. but an absorption. for 1t is
interests Of the other firms In preference
shares Of the new business and In cash.
while he retains all the ordinary shares
in his own hands. This, of course gives
Of business of which the capital Is put
at 912,OO0O00. certain number Of British
firms stand outside the combination. but
from 80 to 90 per cent of the British trade
In household soap is in its hands. 1t is
further stated that the combination is maxi
Ing arrangements to include for working
purposes the great American and continent
tai firms OF soap manufacturers and 1t Is
srumored, we do not know on what author
ity. that the American beef trust, which
controls the words greatest tallow supply
will have hand in the concern. Mean
while we have one phenomenon familiar in
the history of trusts, the price of the COM
bine's goods having been raised to con-
sumers by the reduction by one ounce OF
however, stated by the Daily Mail. which
has been doing no incOnsiderable public
service In drawing attention to the soap
trust and to increase in price owing to
reduction of weight that return has now
been made to the old weight.
Denies It is . Trust.
Mr.. Lever declares that the amalgamation
is no trust, and there is some reason in
his argument for the word Is very loosely
defined and covers a large variety Of cases
There Is no economic waste in all competi-
ton, and larger aggregate profit may be
earned by the competitors uniting both In
production and distribution. This fact is
undeniable and we de-not see how any
one can object to a number Of soap manu-
facturers agreeing to work together. to sup
port common research laboratories and to
open up great areas for the production of
M tori0 o. a n ia INN IN CO
and good business, and such groups Of
manufacturers are following the ordinary
law of mutual assistance. Nor does such
course prevent competition or tyranniZe
over the consumer, for there can be as much
wholesome competition between groups
as between individuals. If Mr.. Levers de-
signs stopped here, his defense would be
incontroYertible. But when 1t Is attempted
to make an amalgamation cover the whole
area of production and embrace all the
manufacturers Of particular commodity.
then obviously new element enters COM
petition becomes difficult. II not impossible,
and the retailer and the consumer must
suffer the producers dictation. A trust
must aim at monopoly OF one or two
things-means of production. or means OF
distribution. In the case of soap. where the
constituents are simple and found every
where. the first is practically impossible.
Oils, tallow and the various alkaline bod
les used In Its manufacture are not the
monopoly of any country or group OF cOun-
tries. We can imagine such a trust In, rub
Der or certain fbers. but mot IN soap. At
the same time. even In the case of soap
something of the same result can be OBJ
tanned by bringing into the trust the larg-
est producers of these simple constituents.
If there is any truth in the rumor about the
beef trust-which, for ourselves we think i'm
probable-the new soap trust would have
something not unlike a monopoly Of chief
constituent The commoner alma mo-
nopoiy OF distributions possible, a. a rule.
only within protected areas. where the pro-
duce of foreign manufacturers Is kept out
by high tariff. There retailers can be
reduced to submission, and the consumer
must follow suit out of sheer inability to
find a retailer who can probably resist
the trusts dictation. But even In free
trade country such as this monopoly of
distribution is possible II the trust includes
the foreign producers. If the rumorS about
the connection of the new trust with Amer
loan and continental manufacturers should
prove to be true, then our free trade sys-
tenn will be Of no beneft. since there will
be no free foreign supplies to import.
Mr. Lever, we understand repudiates any
desire to form combination of all manu-
facturers. and still less to secure q monOp-
oily Of means Of distribution by the method
of 'tied houses" If there is no truth In the
beef trust rumors, in the alleged agree
ments with American and continental man.
ufacturers, then we do not see that the
public need greatly concern itself. The So
called soap trust Is not yet q trust in the
harmful sense. 1t Is simply the purchase
by a very rich manufacturer OF a number
Of other businesses under the belief that
by such absorption the industry can be
run on more economical lines There Is no
attempt to corner raw material, or to
control all retailers In such way that
the consumer will be compelled to buy one
soap and no other at one price and at no
other Even If all British manufacturers
were brought into the a.malgamation. there
would still be the foreign pspducer, whose
soaps. imported free of duty. would pro-
1 vide the element OF competition which the
consumer desires. We admit the hardship
to the small manufacturer. who may in this
way be absorbed to his loss; but this Is one
of the normal risks Of business. and does
not involve the question Of the public good.
The sole point which concerns the state.
"Is one Of the necessaries of life to be made
unduly dear to the citizen in order to in
crease the profits Of a small class Of pro-
ducers?" does not arise. The real danger,
which would at once appear II an extension
of the trust to include foreign manufac-
turers oyercame the guard Of our free
trade system. is not yet before US, and, ac-
cording to Mr.. Lever, is not to be thought
of.