New Ulm review., 1912-10-16


want the same thing, Il cannot be elm
mated from human affairs. In eco
\ nomics 1t will find expression in one
Of two ways either men will com
pete with each other in the market fol
\ the sale OF their respective products;
or, II monopoly is established, they
u will compete for jobs under the mon
Opoly. Competition for jobs 10 the
meanest competition and the most de
struetIve OF character.
Demand For Regulation Based on Mis'
conception.
The demand for trust regulation is
based on the misconception that trusts
are an economic necessity, and have
come to stay. This view has been in
dustriously fostered through that part
OF the press which is under trust con-
troll. It is mere assertion without
sound basis. 1t 10 at par with that
other old fraud that everything that
10, is right" When this view Is ac-
cepted, all progress stops. China has
tried to live by this rule; but even
she has tired of it. The world 10 no
longer satisfied with dosmatIc state.
ments. 1t wants proofs, and proofs are
what trust defenders lack.
Existence Of Trusts Not Proof Of Eco
nomie Value.
The existence Of trusts 10 not proof
OF their economic value. II II was,
then the existence Of burglary would
be proof Of the economic value Of that
crime.
Louis Brandeis, in statement be-
fore the senate committee on inter-
state commerce last December showed
by facts and figures, never challenged,
that trusts are not the result Of eco
nomic development, but of monopoly
privileges granted by law, or taken in
violation of the law. He showed that
In every case where the element Of
monopoly was absent the trust had
failed to hold its own against smaller
competitors. He showed that some
trusts had become so large and un-
Weildly that they were wasteful by
reason of their size, and that, because
of their overgrown proportions, they
had lost trade to their smaller rivals,
in spite of their monopoly advantages.
In support of the latter statement he
cites the case of the steel trust. It
has not only failed to get is share of
the export business in competition
with Germany and England, but it
has lost trade to its smaller competi-
tors at home. He showed by the his
tory of the shipping trust that, where
free competition exists, trusts are i'm
possible. Every one of them rests
upon violation of that fundamental
doctrine Of democracy that all men are
created equal-that Is, equal in their
right to the same opportunity.
The Results Of the Trust System.
Industry has grown upon the world
to serve the needs of mankind. 1t
should be his servant. Monopoly seeks
to make it his master. When monop-
oily is complete, its mastery over him
is complete, and the natural order is
reversed. Any business must be
Judged by its results.
First: Its effect on the cost of pro-
duction.
Second: It's effect on the product.
Third: It's effect on those in its
employ.
Fourth: Its effect on society.
Trusts Increase Cost Of Production.
The cost of trust production is 'ex-
cessive. There are several reasons
'or this. In the first place, every busi-
ness depends for its success largely
On the man at it's head. He must be
familiar with the industry in all of it's
1etails-not only technically, but prac-
ically. But the human mind is limited
n it's grasp of detail. Beyond a Ger.
ain point the manager begins to lose
he concern grows beyond this point,
Tho 20 o,%h hn 11$o |
The head; the more loose ends are
neglected, the more waste and the
higher the cost. Furthermore an ef-
.ective organization must be simple.
But simple organization will not
'erve large combination. AS It grows
larger and larger, more and more
complex organization becomes neces-
sary. in order that the multitude of de-
tails may be taken care of in some
way. Beyond certain point it be.
comes 80 complicated and so top-heavy
that 1t wastes a large part Of the
energy Of the concern holding itself
together and struggling with it's mass
II red tape. The result is slovenli-
1ess, waste, ineficiency, and high cost.
Effect Of Trusts on the Product.
The result on the product is
easy to forsee. And we have plen.
ty of examples. Take the steel
trust again. It is the chief pro- =
ducer of railroad rails. Derail- II
ments due to broken rails have in "
creased enormously since the ad- =
vent of the trust, and it takes toll =
off the life and limbs of railroad y
passengers and employees. This is
nothing short of manslaughter, and
should be punished as such.
j. j. Hill was quoted not long
ago as making the statement that =
the rails which his company +
bought from the Krupp works in
Germany twenty years ago, and
which have been in use ever since, "
are better now than American
rails made five years ago. John
w. Gates made the same kind of =
charge in 1907.
+ |
The same general condition is found
n the products of the woolen and j!
'ther trusts, proving their failure to
leep up the standard of their products.