POSSIBLE REMEDIES FOR MONOPOLISTIC CONDITIONS 19 



ber owners are not cutting their timber, but are holding their 

 estates intact and perhaps buying up smaller tracts for imme- 

 diate cutting. Finally, it is of course evident that with the 

 rise in timber values the power of the holders of the remaining 

 supply will be greatly augmented. 



Now upon the basis of this concentration in the ownership 

 of standing timber, a monopolistic situation has developed in 

 the manufacturing industry. Associations of manufacturers 

 have been formed and have grown strong enough to manipulate 

 prices to their own profit, sometimes by concerted curtailment 

 of output, sometimes by adherence to a price list, sometimes 

 by other means. 



The evidence presented in the Missouri Ouster Suit and 

 likewise much other evidence that is available, indicates 

 clearly that the lumber manufacturers are strongly organized 

 and that they have often raised prices by illegal concerted 

 efforts. 



The question now arises as to what remedy is proposed for 

 such a situation as has been here briefly outlined. 1 Four dif- 

 ferent methods of attack might be suggested. First, the Gov- 

 ernment may attack all unlawful combinations among lumber- 

 men or lumber dealers under the anti-trust laws, Federal and 

 State, and in that way try to secure competitive prices for con- 

 sumers. In the second place, the Government might recognize 

 the lumber business as a natural monopoly based on the pos- 

 session of a natural resource, and regulate prices through a 

 commission. In the third place, since monopolistic conditions 

 in the manufacture and distribution of lumber are in general 

 based upon a monopoly of the standing timber, the Govern- 

 ment might perhaps strike at the root of the problem by im- 

 posing a graduated tax on timber holdings and in that way 

 break up the large estates. In the fourth place the Government 

 may simply extend the system of National Forests as rapidly 



1 For excellent recent discussions of the trust problem, see articles by Prof. 

 E. Dana Durand in the Quarterly Journal of Economics for May and August, 1914 ; 

 and by Prof. W. H. S. Stevens in the Political Science Quarterly for June and 

 September, 1914. Among other works on the same subject are: (1) John Bates 

 Clark, The Control of Trusts; (2) Richard T. Ely, Monopolies and Trusts; (3) 

 Charles R. Van Hise, Concentration and Control ; (4) Bruce Wyman, Control of 

 the Market; and a great number of other contributions of importance. The 

 amount of trust literature is altogether too great to be given consideration here. 



