122 CHARLES J. BULLOCK 



concerning the advantages of superseding large scale produc- 

 tion by combinations that include all important establish- 

 ments in a single line of business. The "industrial combina- 

 tion," which those who take a generally favorable view of 

 trusts are upholding, must mean the replacement of inde- 

 pendent enterprises already conducted on a large scale by a 

 single centralized management. To combinations of this 

 character writers may or may not apply the term " monop- 

 olies;" but the real issue, nevertheless, is the alleged superior- 

 ity of a single body of producers over independent rival con- 

 cerns. 



When it is contended that combination means not " neces- 

 sarily one great trust, comprising one great industry," but 

 merely "an enlargement of capital," we must insist that this 

 is not what the arguments in favor of centralization are con- 

 sidered or designed to prove. When another writer tells us 

 that combination may be contrasted not with competition, 

 but with " isolation "—by which, probably, production in 

 small establishments is to be understood— we may properly 

 remind him that in his own works combination is used as the 

 opposite of competition, and that he says that sometimes "in- 

 dustrial units which are necessary for proper utilization of 

 labor become so large as to produce actual monopoly." When 

 others tell us that the trusts have seldom secured that im- 

 munity from competition which monopoly implies, it must be 

 replied that this fact serves merely to discredit some of the 

 arguments intended to prove the superiority of consolidation, 

 and does not alter the purpose for which these arguments are 

 advanced. 



If the tendency towards combination means anything, 

 it means the substitution of centralized and consolidated 

 management for the rivalry of independent concerns; and 

 this may fairly be termed monopoly. If, furthermore, the 

 advocates of combinations intend to defend nothing more 

 than production upon a large scale, they should revise their 

 list of arguments designed to prove that competition is 

 "wasteful," "destructive," "suicidal," and "a thing of the 

 past;" and should make it clear that they do not uphold the 

 action of most of our trusts in consolidating all establish- 



