No. 7. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 205 



the host we may pick up in every market place. It is in fact the 

 shibboleth of mere gambling speculation, and is hardly entitled to 

 rank as an axiom in the jurisprudence of this country. I believe 

 universal observation will attest that in the last quarter of a century 

 competition in trade has caused more individual distress than the 

 want of competition. 



"Indeed, by reducing prices below, or raising them above value (as 

 the nature of the trade permitted), competition has done more to 

 monopolize trade, or to secure exclusive advantages in it, than has 

 been done by contract. Rivalry in trade will destroy itself, and 

 rival tradesmen seek to remove each other, rarely resorting to con- 

 tract, unless they find it the cheapest mode of putting an end to the 

 strife." 



In deciding a case in the Exchequer of England in August, 1888, 

 Lord Coleridge said: 



'^It must be remembered that all trade is, and must be, in a sense, 

 selfish. Trade not being infinite, nay, the trade of a particular place 

 or district being possibly very limited, what one man gains another 

 man loses. In the hand to hand war of commerce, as in the con- 

 flicts of public life, whether at the bar, in Parliament, in medicine, 

 in engineering, men fight on without much thought of others, except 

 a desire to excel or defeat them. Very lofty minds, like Sir Philip 

 Sydney, with his cup of water, will not stoop to take an advantage, 

 if they think another wants it more. Our age, in spite of high au- 

 thority to the contrary, is not without its Sir Philip Sydney, but 

 these are counsels of perfection which it would be silly indeed to 

 make the measure of the rough business of the world, as pursued by 

 ordinary men of business." 



For a certainty, if the words of these men be true, the lessening of 

 competition by the formation of trusts, is not hurtful to trade, but 

 rather beneficial. ' 



So many people persist in referring to trusts as "gigantic monopo- 

 lies," that they have come to be generally known as such, and a mo- 

 nopoly is one of the things that the free-born American citizen natur- 

 ally resents. It was well said by one of the delegates from Penn- 

 sylvania to the Trust Congress at Chicago last September, that "if 

 consolidation of industrial plants prevented competition and cre- 

 ated monopolies, all thinking men would condemn them; but if, as 

 some believe, they only prevent that competition which is injurious, 

 and stimulate that competition which is beneficial to the public, 

 then, instead of curses, they are blessings." 



If any considerable number of people persist long enough in 

 calling an enterprise by a hard name, it will get to be known by that 

 name, whether it deserves it or not. 



I have already suggested to you that the creation of a monopoly, 



