204 ANNUAL. REPORT OF THE Off. Doc. 



to feed and clothe our people, to beautify and adorn their dwellings, 

 to relieve the sick, to help the needy, to enrich and ennoble human- 

 ity, which is not to a great extent done through the instrumentality 

 of corporations." 



Now, trusts, as we have seen, are merely combinations of cor- 

 porations, where aggregate capital is combined, and put under the 

 control of a central board, and unless that process of association is 

 fraught with some particular evil, the power of the trust to develop 

 material good and prosperity ought to be greatly enhanced, without 

 disproportionately increasing its liability to do harm and to impede 

 prosperity. 



All of the arguments which are advanced against trusts dw'ell upon 

 the alleged increased ability and disposition of aggregate capital 

 to make for the wrong, to create monopolies, for example, and thus 

 stifle competition and destroy individual industry, to decrease wages, 

 thereby lowering the cost of production and increasing profits, and 

 to increase the price of the trust product. 



They put behind them the argument that the ability of the trust 

 to make for good and for the general prosperity is also enhanced, 

 and they ignore the fact that the only, trust w'hich can become a 

 monopoly is one that can gain control of some natural resource, 

 such as oil, and that the Standard Oil Company, the commonest 

 illustration of a trust monopoly, has never had a wage difference with 

 its men, and while it has bettered the quality of its product, has kept 

 the price of it down, so that it is just a trifle more expensive than 

 daylight. 



There is one aspect of the argument against the trust, however, 

 which I think may be conceded: It does tend to prevent competition. 

 Now, there is an old saw, more flippant than truthful, that ''compe- 

 tition is the life of trade." In these days, when capital is embarked 

 in special enterprises involving costly machinery, it is impossible 

 to withdraw it, or even reduce it, if the business becomes unprofit- 

 able. Competition in such cases leads quickly to a marking down 

 of prices, each getting lower and lower in price, to hold or secure 

 trade, and it is known as ''cut-throat" competition. If it is the life 

 of trade, it is the death of the trader. It is one of the very things 

 which has led to the formation of trusts, for I can assure you that 

 when a manufacturer has to decide betw^een "trust or bust," the 

 outcome of that decision is not at all uncertain. 



"If it be true, also," said a learned judge, "that competition is 

 the life of trade, it may follow such premises that he who relaxes 

 competition commits an act injurious to trade; and not only so, 

 but he commits an overt act of treason against this Commonwealth. 

 But I apprehend that it is not true that competition is the life of 

 trade. On the contrary, that maxim is one of the least reliable of 



