The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-04-29
EyoLUrroN OF THE TRUST

s----~---~z
 EVOLUTION OF THE TRUST Time was, and not so long ago, when to call businesy'a trust was to brand 1t with a very reprehensible title. Any business, in- dustrial or financial combination that could be called a trust was looked upon with dis trust. It was thought that these monopolies would finally become so huge as to crowd out small competitors entirely and then would that those, whom Theodore Roosevelt aptly termed muck-rakers, became exceedingly busy digging up all sorts of scandals and near scandals about big corporations. No matter how extravagant the statement, everybody believed it. The magazines became veritable dore Roosevelt made his famous and success full attacks upon what he called eombina- 1 tions in restraint of trade managed by men whom he succinctly grouped as "malefactors of great wealth." During His adn,inistra- tion and afterwards there were many pros cautions under antitrust legislation, both state and federal.
 As usual when public excitement was worked up to high pitch, there was much confusion of judgment and clouding of clear vision. There was much injustice based on false premise. [, Tn order to correct the wrong that really existed the enthusiasm passed beyond the bounds of reason and to some ex- tent the innocent suffered with the guilty. Gradually, as public excitement died down, it was perceived that bigness in business was not in itself crime. On the contrary, there was increasing recognition of the fact that, when there is big task to perform, it takes big organization well-financed to perform it. Therefore, clarifying vision has finally come to perceive that while some trusts need curbing, others are content to stay within the law and to use no illegal methods of competition. It is enough to penalize only the trusts and corporations that abuse their opportunities, and those only in the respect in which they offend. In other words, the effort nowadays is to make all trusts he good.
 The arguments that agents of big business have adduced in favor of big combinations have been some sound and some unsound. One of the most potent is that large or ganization reduces the overhead and the per unit of cost. There can be no. doubt that this is true. But when the advocates go step further and say that the result is goods at a reduced cost to the consumer, the truth of the assertion is not always so obvious. The reasonable reply is that it is true in some cases and not in others. In certain cases there can be no doubt that the saw ] ing goes into the pockets of those in control. It is very easy so to manipulate costs as to escape in part the, payment of excess profits taxes. People are becoming more expert at that every year. Nevertheless, the public suspects that ther eis something peculiar about the wide spread existing between the cost of the raw materials and the price of the finished products of certain industries. It cannot be explained away, no matter how many reams the concerns affected publish in their own defense.
 A hint of how monopoly has kept its price up, either through inefficiency or pur- loosely, is given before the senate committee on Muscle Shoals by Francis R. Weller, en- gineer for a Niagara Falls chemical com pany. According to Washington dispatch, Mir. Weller declared that Henry Ford, in nossession of Muscle Shoals power, would produce aluminium so cheaply that the Amer ;can aluminium trust would be put out of husiness." On this incredible ground, Mir. Weller based his opposition to the Ford offer. Perhaps he represented an all-too- common attitude on the part of certain lead CTS in monopoly when he assumed that the senators representing the public welfare would be swayed by the thought that the consumers of aluminium products would be benefited only at the expense of trust. Incidents recently brought to light in Wash ingtou would lend some color to that view, to be sure, but the public is hardly ready to accent that view as a rule of conduct for its l servants.
 Evidently, a monopoly that admittedly has ifs prices so high as to be unable to com nete with efficient low-cost production is worth examination. The argument Mir. Vel Ter uses against the Ford offer is. in the public mind, the strongest possible argument for the Ford offer. Henry Ford will fur nish competition that will bring down prices. Very well, let nobody stand in his way
 -
 THE WHOLE STORY DEMANDED
 Persistent attempts to obstruct the Daugh