194 Early History of American Auctions 



American importing" merchants and jobbers, and disturbed the 

 accustomed channels of trade, and diverted a large part of foreign 

 commerce to foreign agents and consignees resident in America. 



(c) The auctioneer was less responsible than the merchant and 

 retailer for dishonest practices and frauds, such as short lengths, 

 deficient numbers, defective materials, etc.^"^ 



(d) Auctions tended to concentrate a considerable proportion 

 of the trade in a few hands and draw away the customers of 

 merchants and retailers, and were therefore attacked as "monop- 

 olistic." But it was a perverted use of the term, for the ear-marks 

 of monopoly are limitation of supply, higher prices, discrimina- 

 tions, and excessive profits, none of which characterized the 

 auctions. Indeed they tended to make trade more competitive, 

 to break the hold of jobbers and retailers on their customers, 

 and to give open publicity to prices and profits. The concen- 

 tration of auction sales at fewer places was to the convenience 

 of buyers and very likely intensified competition among buyers. 

 Auction sales made it possible for small local and interior retailers 

 to get a start Avhom the jobbers refused or hesitated to encourage. 

 The complaint against auctions was that against big business 

 and plutocracy; they were held to be "unjust, by giving to a 

 few, that which ought to be distributed^ among the mercantile 

 community generally. A single auction house does as much 

 business as would support fifty respectable firms in private trade, 

 each consisting of two partners, maintaining two families, and 

 two or three clerks. The evident tendency of this monopoly is 

 to crush the middle ranks, and to divide the society into the 

 very rich and the poor."^"- Evidently the case is exaggerated 

 and the economic doctrine questionable. The only basis for 

 charge of monopoly was that the auctioneers were under license 

 by the State and their number limited and no other persons were 

 allowed to sell in this way^^^ ; but as there were every year some 

 auctioneer licenses not taken it is evident that New York was 



^"' For instances showing the impossibility of holding the auctioneer 

 responsible, see "Remarks upon the Auction System," pp. 27-31, 36-42. 

 For a direct denial of such responsibility and for a strong statement of 

 the auctioneers' honesty and honor, see the "Auctioneers' Alemorial" in 

 Annals of Congress, i6th Congress, 2d session, p. 1521. 



"■ Niles, 34 : 258 ; 19: 130-131 ; 18:301. 



'''Niles, 18: 418. 



