The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-02-20
WILL MONOPOLY PERISH OF ITS OWN DEFECTS? Commissioner J. E. Davies De- fines Policy of Investi-
 gation. SMALLER CONCERNS MAY
 BE MORE EFFICIENT If Monopoly Is More Efficient Does It Keep All the Ad-
 vantage For Itself.
 

Washington, Feb. 20-Does the mon opolistic system contain in itself the seeds of it's own decay?
 That question CoLnnisSionef Joseph
 E. Davies. of the Bureau of Corpora tions. declared, in his annual report made public today, federal investi-
 gation now under way hopes to an- swer
 Tn review of a working program for the bureau, Commissioner Davies
 points out that aside from an econonn- ic study of the trust question: retail
 price maintenauce is one Of the ques- tions to be taken up. Trusts, their efficiency and reforms however, are to
 comprise the principal work for the coming year. The need of some fed- eral body for the purposs qf investisa- ton and publicity in trust affairs
 whether it be the bureau Of corpora
 lions as now organized, or a commis- sion as proposed in the pending ad- minfstratioh bills in Congress, Com missioner Davies emphasized.
 Tn his report he discussed the mon opoly question at length, saying in
 part:
 Many large combinations have faiI-
 ed and demonstrated their economic
 inc ffictency. Combinations have ob-
 tained control of the market and 1t
 ia admitted, have proepered, but this is. alleged to be due to their monop- olist5c position. and not to- superior efficiency. According to those who hold this view, there is a point be- yond which the increase in size of operations does not result in an in- crease in economy and efficiency. but rather in loss and waste, so that the maxim11nn efTlciency is not attained by large combinations, but instead by concerns of moderate size. If this
 latter contention be true, then, as has been safds the monopolfskic system contains in itself the seeds of it's own decay.
 Again. some of those who dispute
 the superior efficiency of large com bina<ionB contend that t1is cla1sH Is lmade merely as a blind for the pux- Fp0Bw of selfzuB' Hbenez lzg say thslt such organizations are esS tabIished for the purpose either of getting control of the market and ex- acting excessive prices from consum- CTS, or of Issuing large amounts of watered stock for the purpose of sell ing such stock to the public. In the first case, it is argued such conbin- ations are not concerned with the pro- motion Of greater efficiency but mere Iy with obtaining monopoly; in the second case they are chiefly concerned with selling the stock, and as they can not claim to the general public. that 1t has a great value due to mon- opo1y, they are obliged to find anoth- CT selling argument, namely. superior efficiency.
 "Of almost equal importance with the determination of this question of comparative efficiency iss that Of fhe price policy of such large industrial |combinations as have achieved a substantial control Of the market Those who alIege that such industrial enterprises result in greater economy and efficiency in productionSo often over look the equally important question whether or not they absorb all tine benefits of such economies in increas- led profits without eonceding any share thereof to labor in higher wages, or to consumers in relatively lower prices or improved quality of goods.