THE GOOD AND THE BAD OF TRUSTS 123 



merits of a given class, in order to " regulate production" or 

 to " remove the evils of competition." We may advise the 

 reader, therefore, to grasp firmly the distinction between 

 large scale production and monopoly, and to note carefully 

 whether the arguments advanced in favor of combination 

 relate to the one thing or the other. Unless this is done, 

 clearness of thought becomes impossible. 



Does the trust movement, then, mean a permanent 

 regime of monopoly in industries where large amounts of 

 capital must be employed? Some writers who consider 

 the movement to be, upon the whole, a desirable develop- 

 ment in industry, answer clearly in the negative. Thus 

 Professor Sherwood says that the dominant position which 

 trusts now enjoy depends mainly upon "monopoly of under- 

 taking ability," and that this is "in its nature temporary 

 and the result of a competitive process." The large gains 

 that now accrue to these monopolistic enterprises are merely 

 a temporary reward for the development of a superior form 

 of business organization. And Mr. Carnegie, Mr. Dill, Mr. 

 Wanamaker, and others insist that "every attempt to monop- 

 olize the manufacture of any staple article carries within its 

 own bosom the seeds of failure," or that "no men, or body 

 of men, have ever been able, or will be able, permanently to 

 hold control of any one article of trade and commerce." But 

 the arguments of most of those who take a favorable view 

 of trusts cannot be given such interpretation. Some writers 

 state clearly and frankly that "the competitive system of 

 industry is fast passing away," and that all lines of business 

 "are, or soon are to be, monopolized;" that "monopolies of 

 every sort are an inevitable result from certain conditions of 

 modern civilization;" "that experience seems to justify the 

 belief that monopoly within certain limits . . . may be 

 secured simply by the possession of large capital;" or that 

 trusts represent "a vast accumulation of productive resources 

 which renders the competition of small concerns hopeless." 

 And this is the view, of course, which is entertained by persons 

 of socialistic tendencies. Sometimes it is attempted to add 

 force to such arguments by calling combination the result of 

 an evolutionary process of survival; and one writer remarks 



