Some of these societies, as those dealing in citrus fruits, regulate with some success the picking and the marketing so as to distribute them more evenly throughout the year. They watch the markets and direct their agents by telegraph to divert cars en route away from markets that are glutted with products and into markets where prices are higher. They take some of the products, as eggs in the spring at the period of low prices, and pack or refrigerate them, to be sold when prices are higher. For thus withholding the supply they are said by some to exercise a monopolistic power. But this is a more than doubtful view. So long as only the seasonal variations are equalized and the total supply of the year is not reduced it is, on the marginal principle, an economic service to the consumers, comparable to insurance in its utility. Any reduction of the area planted or of the entrance of others into the industry would be a monopolistic act but this as yet has not occurred.
§ 13. #Coöperation in buying.# Coöperative buying (called also consumers' coöperation or distributive coöperation) has had a large growth in the British Isles, since 1844, when the society called the Rochdale Pioneers was founded by a group of factory workingmen. The coöperative stores, both in Great Britain and on the Continent, have continued to develop mainly among the industrial classes in urban centers. However, this has not been exclusively the case, and particularly in Denmark and Ireland coöperative buying has increased in agriculture in connection with selling associations. Since 1890 the growth of consumers' coöperation among European industrial wage-earners has been phenomenal, especially in Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland. American wage-workers, however, have made few and feeble efforts in this direction.
In the period beginning 1867 many coöperative stores were founded in America by farmers in the Grange movement, who operated also grain elevators, warehouses, and steamboat lines. But the movement failed about 1877. This result is easily explained by lack of commercial knowledge and lack of harmony among the members, selling on credit, and inefficient management. A new era in consumers' coöperation for farmers began about 1900 and now in several widely separated parts of the country—Minnesota, Kansas, California, Washington, and elsewhere—the movement is spreading rapidly, supported in large part by the same persons who are members of the selling associations.
§ 14. #Need of agricultural credit.# Banking originated in cities and for the use of the merchant-class. It still retains pretty faithfully its commercial character. The change of farming toward a more commercial form[4] has been little aided by banking credit. National banks and many others were forbidden in their charters to lend on the security of real-estate, the farmer's one business asset.[5] A great number of farms are always in course of being purchased, the balance of purchase money being borrowed by the purchaser. A group of private agencies such as life insurance and mortgage loan companies and local money lenders has supplied in somewhat costly ways the need of farm credits. Tho rates of interest have become more equalized throughout the whole country, they still range between 7 and 10 per cent in the Southern and Western states, averaging 7 per cent in the whole country for interest and commission. The need of better opportunities for credit in the agricultural districts has long been recognized. The high rate of interest for borrowed money necessarily placed a limit on improvements in equipment and methods of farming.[6]
§ 15. #Recent provisions for farm loans#. The Federal Reserve Act made two important changes to improve agricultural credit.[7] Soon afterward some of the states took more vigorous action to provide a special system of agricultural credit, especially New York and Missouri. In the latter state, on the initiative of a public-spirited citizen of St. Louis, was passed in 1915 a notable act of legislation known as the Gardner State Land Bank Act (effective December 1, 1916, provided a constitutional amendment is adopted in November, 1916). This authorizes the establishment of a land bank, with power to lend on the security of farming lands, for buying farms and for productive improvements, and to issue bonds to be sold to investors.
Following this general plan the Federal Farm Loan Act became law July 17, 1916. It authorized the establishment of twelve Federal Land Banks, each with a capital of not less than $750,000 to make loans through national farm loan associations organized somewhat after the model of the building and loan associations. The bonds issued by these banks are to bear not to exceed 5 per cent interest. It is hoped that they will have the high credit of municipal bonds so that they may be sold at parity, bearing interest at 4 or 4.5 per cent. The loan is repaid by the farmers under a regular plan of amortization. The practical results of these measures are yet to appear. They are expected to give to loans that are made on the security of farms as wide a market and as high credit as state and municipal bonds now have. They bid fair to bring the rate of interest on long-time loans to farmers down to 5 per cent or less in the remotest parts of the land. This will stimulate agricultural improvement, and facilitate the purchase of land by tenants. Where the interest rate has been the highest it should raise the value of farm lands as it brings them within the circle of a lower-interest-rate economy. This may hasten the transfer of the lands from less provident to more provident owners, who are willing to take the land at a higher capitalization. But the system of loans will probably help to develop greater thrift in the younger farming population.
[Footnote 1: See Vol. I, chs. 12 and 13 on proportionality and usance.]
[Footnote 2: See ch. 25, secs. 4 and 5.]
[Footnote 3: See above, ch. 19, secs. 13, 14, 15.]
[Footnote 4: See above, sec. 3.]
[Footnote 5: See ch. 8, sec. 8.]
[Footnote 6: See Vol. I, pp. 495-497, on the relation between lower interest rates and productive processes.]
[Footnote 7: See ch. 9, sec. 7 on time deposits, and sec. 9 on farm loans.]
CHAPTER 27
THE RAILROAD PROBLEM
§ 1. Rise of the corporation concept. § 2. The modern era of corporations. § 3. Beginning of corporation problems. § 4. The era of canals. § 5. Rapid building of American railroads. § 6. Reasons for governmental aid. § 7. Kinds of governmental aid. § 8. Emergence of the railroad problem. § 9. Discrimination as to goods. § 10. Local discrimination. § 11. Personal discrimination. § 12. Economic power of railroad managers. § 13. Political power of railroad managers, § 14. Consolidation of railroads. § 15. State railroad commissions. § 16. Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act. § 17. Working of the Act. § 18. Public nature of the railroad franchise. § 19. Other peculiar privileges of railroads. § 20. Private and public interests to be harmonized.
§ 1. #Rise of the corporation concept#. In the legal systems of primitive people and long afterward, only natural persons had legal rights, could make contracts, have property, and carry on a business. But in a number of cases, very early, groups of men came to have certain interests in common and certain possessions. Gradually some such groups gained more or less of legal recognition, with certain political and economic rights as a body and not as individuals. Thus evolved the conception of a "corporation" (body) having men as "members," an artificial person, yet not the same as any one or as all the individuals together, and legally distinct from the individuals. A group of burghers obtaining a charter from the lord of the realm became a municipal corporation; a group of teachers, a collegium, became the corporation of the college or a university (a number of persons united into one association); a group of craftsman became a gild-corporation. Each corporation had certain rights, privileges, and immunities, and used a corporate seal as a signature. All of the early corporations had some economic features that were incidental to the main purposes, which were political, ecclesiastical, educational, and fraternal. Toward the end of the Middle Ages groups of traders obtained charters to act as corporations permanently for business purposes, such as foreign trade, colonization, and banking. These increased in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and in the eighteenth century this form of organization was adopted also and parliamentary charters obtained, by groups of men for building turnpikes and canals and for carrying on other kinds of business.
§ 2. #The modern era of corporations#. The great era of the corporations did not begin, however, until well on in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Then, both in Europe and in America, the corporate form of organization was extended to a greater number, and to other kinds, of enterprises. It proved itself to be well adapted to enterprises for the construction and operation of canals and railroads, requiring a larger amount of capital than usually could or would be risked by one person. The investor in a corporation bought shares, and his liability for debts and losses was limited by charter to his share capital. It is an advantage that permanent enterprises of that kind are owned by corporations with charters perpetual or for long periods. It is possible for corporations to make investments running for longer periods than would be safe for individuals. The corporation with an unlimited charter has legally an immortal life. Sale and change of management are not necessary on the death or failure in health of any one owner. As the factory system and large production developed, the corporate form of organization was found to have these same advantages in manufacturing. It appeared in textile, iron, mercantile, and other industries. After 1865 the corporate form of organization increased at a cumulative rate, until now it is applied to many enterprises of small extent and local in operation. There are 300,000 corporations making returns to the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[1] There were 70,000 manufacturing corporations, which were 26 per cent of the whole number of manufacturing establishments, but which employed 76 per cent of all wage earners and turned out 79 per cent of the whole product.
§ 3. #Beginning of corporation problems.# With the corporations came "the corporation problem," a single name for a complex of problems—legal, political, moral, and economic—which arise out of the relations of corporations to their individual stockholders, to their employees, to the state, to the general public, and to their competitors in business. The problems differ also in corporations of different sizes and in different businesses. We shall discuss in this and succeeding chapters but a few of the larger aspects of the corporation problem, the railroad, the industrial trust, and certain other kinds of monopolistic industry.
Of the various forms of corporations, banks first presented problems calling for economic legislation and regulation. This is explained by the fact that it was the first kind of business corporation to become important, and further by the fact that its work was in various ways closely connected with the coinage and regulation of money, which had already become a governmental function. The railroad was the form of corporation next in point of time to become a great problem; this because of the peculiarly vital and far-reaching effects that such railroad transportation has upon all other kinds of business in the community, as appears in what follows.
§ 4. #The era of canals.# Canals were used in the ancient empires for irrigating, for the supplying of cities with water, and for navigation. In the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries they were rapidly built in England and America. Six canals had been built in the United States before 1807, but the "canal-era" in America dated from the beginning of work on the Erie canal in 1817, and continued until about 1840, when nearly all new work ceased; over 4000 miles of canals had been built at a cost of $200,000,000.
The great advantage of canals is cheapness of operation due to the simplicity of the machinery needed and to the great loads that can be moved with small power. A cent a ton-mile proved to be a paying rate on a small canal. For heavy, slow-moving freight, a railroad can even now barely rival a parallel canal at its best. As canals, however, can be built only along pretty level routes and where the water supply is at high level, their construction is limited to a small portion of the country. The principle of diminishing returns applies strongly to the construction of canals; the first canals in favored locations are easily constructed and economically operated, but it is only with greater cost and difficulty that the system can be successively extended. In temperate climates the use of canals is limited by ice to a part of the year, and by the summer's drought sometimes still further. At its best, therefore, the small land-locked canal is fitted only to be a supplementary agent in the system of transportation wherever another transportation agency of higher speed and greater regularity is possible. Far different is the case of the oceanic canal in a tropical climate.
Canals do not appear to have developed any serious problems calling for public regulation of rates. A first simple legislative act fixing the rate of tolls for boats was sufficient. Charges were made by distance as on a toll road and the boats were owned by different private shippers or by common carriers among whom competition prevailed.
§ 5. #Rapid building of American railroads#. The canal was just reaching the peak of popular favor when the railroad in 1830, after a half-century of slowly accumulating technical improvements, burst into view as a demonstrated success as a means of transportation.[2] The railroad excels in adaptability any other agent of transportation; it can go over mountains or tunnel through them. It is markedly superior in certainty; it may be blocked for a day or two by floods and snows, but it suffers no seasonal stoppage of traffic. In speed, even the early railroad so far excelled that the canal could survive only by dividing the traffic, taking the lower grades of freight, and leaving to the railroad the passenger traffic and fast freight. Even in respect to cheapness, the unique virtue of waterways in favored localities, the railroad made rapid gains. Improvements in roadbed, rails, cars, engines, and other equipment soon reduced greatly the cost of conducting traffic on the main lines of roads. Because of these qualities railroads soon surpassed in importance every other agency of internal transportation. The miles constructed and miles in operation in the United States, by decades since 1830 were as follows (route mileage, not counting double tracks and sidings):
Miles constructed Total route miles in decade. in operation.
1830 …………………… 23 23 1840 …………………… 2,795 2,818 1850 …………………… 6,203 9,021 1800 …………………… 21,605 30,626 1870 …………………… 22,296 52,922 1880 …………………… 40,345 93,267 1890 …………………… 73,924 167,191 1900 …………………… 31,773 198,964 1910 …………………… 51,028 249,992 1915 (5 yrs.) …………… 13,555 263,547
The extension of railroads was so rapid that there was not time for a gradual adjustment of industrial conditions. In many places the resulting changes were revolutionary. The building of railroads in the Mississippi valley in the seventies lowered the value of eastern farms, ruined many English farmers, and depressed the condition of the peasantry in all western Europe.[3] With the lower prices that resulted when the fertile lands of the western prairies were opened to the world's markets, the less fertile lands of the older districts could not compete. Many other changes, of no less moment in limited districts, resulted from the building of railroads. Local trading-centers decreased in importance. Villages and towns, hoping to be enriched by the railroads, saw their trade going to the cities. Commerce became centralized. Enormous increases of value at a few points were offset by losses in other localities.
§ 6. #Reasons for governmental aid#. The growth of railroads in America was more rapid than in any other part of the world, but it did not occur without much help to private capital from governmental agencies. The railroad enterprise was uncertain, the possibilities of its growth could not be foreseen, and private capital would not invest without great inducements. In European countries the railways were built through comparatively densely populated districts to connect cities already of large size. Yet railroad extension was very slow there, even tho the states in many ways aided the enterprises. America was comparatively sparsely populated, and most of the railroads were built in advance of and to attract population, business, and traffic. In many cases railroad building in America was part of a gigantic real-estate speculation undertaken collectively by the taxpayers of the communities.
§ 7. #Kinds of governmental aid#. American states recklessly abandoned the policy of non-interference, and vied with each other in giving railroad enterprises lands, money, and privileges, in loaning bonds, in subscribing for stock, and in releasing from taxation. These fostering measures were expected to increase wealth and to diffuse a greater welfare through the community. Many states were forced to the point of bankruptcy by their reckless generosity, and some states repudiated the debts thus incurred.
The national government then took up the same policy and granted lands to the states to be used for this purpose. The first case of this kind was the grant to the Illinois Central road, in 1850, of a great strip of land through the state from north to south. Grants were made in fourteen states, covering tens of millions of acres of land. Then the national government, between 1863 and 1869, aided the building of the Pacific railroads by granting outright twenty square miles of land for every mile of track and by loaning the credit of the government to the extent of fifty million dollars,—a debt which was settled by compromise only after thirty years.
Counties, townships, cities, and villages then entered into keen competition to secure the building of railroads, projected by private enterprise. Bonds, bonuses, tax-exemptions, and many special privileges were granted. To obtain this new Aladdin's lamp, this great wealth-bringer, localities mortgaged their prosperity for years to come. The promoters bargained skilfully for these grants, playing off town against town, cultivating the speculative spirit, punishing the obdurate. Not the civil engineer, but the railroad promoter determined the devious lines of many a railroad on the level prairies of America. The effects of these grants were in many cases disastrous, and after 1870 they were forbidden in a number of states by legislation and by constitutional amendments. But before this era of generosity ended, probably the railroads in America had received more public aid than has ever been given to any other form of industry in private hands.
§ 8. #Emergence of the railroad problem#. In most charters and laws authorizing the building of railroads, either nothing was specified regarding rates, or maximum rates were fixed which proved to be so high that they were of little, if any, practical effect. But very soon began to appear some serious evils in the policy of railroads toward the shipping and traveling public in matters of rates and of service.
As the ownership of the wagons, ships, and canal-boats of a country is usually divided, ocean ports and points along the lines of turnpikes and canals enjoy competition between carriers. In the early days of the railroads it was believed that a company or the government would own the rails and charge toll to the different carriers, who would own cars and conduct the traffic as was done on the canals. Experience soon showed the impracticability of this scheme and the need of unified management. An operating railroad company, therefore, has a monopoly at all points on its line not touched by other carriers. This, like any other monopoly, is limited, for the railroad, to secure traffic, is led to meet competition of whatever kind—that of wagons, canals, rivers, or of other railroads—wherever it occurs. The railroads in private hands early began to "charge what the traffic would bear," high where they could, and low where they must, to get the business. Thus developed the various forms of discrimination which are now to be described.
§ 9. #Discrimination as to goods#. Discrimination as to goods is charging more for transporting one kind of goods than for another without a corresponding difference in the cost. When reasonably understood, this proposition does not apply to a higher charge for goods of greater bulk, as more per pound for feathers than for iron, the "dead weight" of car being much greater in one case than in the other. It does not apply where there is a difference in risk, as between bricks and powder, or coal and crockery; nor where there is a difference in trouble, as between live stock and wheat. Any difference that can reasonably be explained as due to a difference in cost is not discrimination; on the other hand a difference in cost without a difference in rate is discrimination. Discrimination as to goods may be by value, as low rates for heavy, cheap goods, and high rates for lighter, valuable ones. Coal always goes at a low rate as compared with dry goods, and sometimes more is charged for coal to be used for gas than for coal to be used for heating purposes.
Railroad discrimination so frequently has resulted in injustice to the shipping public that the term has taken on an evil significance. But it is well to observe that the word discrimination is not derived from crimen (crime), but from discernere (to discern). There are both reasonable and unreasonable forms of discrimination. In general discrimination as to goods more often appears, under certain conditions and made with due regard to the public interest, to be reasonable; less often to be justified is the form of local discrimination, next to be described; and least often of all to be justified is the last named form of personal discrimination.
§ 10. #Local discrimination#. Discrimination between places (called also local discrimination) is charging different rates to two localities for substantially the same service. This occurs when local rates are high and through rates are low; when rates at local points are high and at competing points are low; when less is charged for shipments consigned to foreign ports than for domestic shipments; when, more is charged for goods going east than for goods going west. The causes of local discrimination are: first, water-competition, found at great trade centers such as New York and San Francisco; second, differences in terminal facilities, making some places better shipping-points than others; third, competition by other railroads, which is concentrated at certain points, only one tenth of the stations of the United States being junctions; fourth, the influence of powerful individuals or large corporations and the personal favoritism shown by railroad officials.
The effects of local discrimination are to develop some districts and depress others; to stimulate cities and blight villages; to destroy established industries; to foster monopolies at favored points; and to sacrifice the future revenues of the road by forcing industry to move in the competing points to get the low rates. The power of railroad officials arbitrarily to cause rates to rise or fall is happily limited in practice by the need of earning as large and as regular an income as possible, but even as exercised it has been at times as great as that possessed by many political rulers.
§ 11. #Personal discrimination#. Discrimination between shippers (personal discrimination) is charging one person more than another for substantially the same service. This most odious of railroad vices, rarely practised openly, is done by false billing of weight, by wrong descriptions or false classification to reduce the charge below published rate-sheets, by carrying some goods free, by issuing passes to some and not to all patrons under the same conditions, or by donations or rebates after the regular rate has been paid. In some cases a subordinate agent shares his commission with the shipper, and the transaction does not appear on the books of the company. In other cases favored shippers are given secret information that the rate is to be changed, so that they are enabled to regulate their shipments to secure the lower rate.
One group of reasons for personal discrimination is connected with the interests of the road. It is to build up new business; it is to make competition with rival roads more effective by favoring certain agents, as was very commonly done in the Western grain business; it is to exclude competition, as by refusing to make a rate from a connecting line or to receive materials for a new railroad which is to be a competitor; and it is to satisfy large shippers whose power, skill, and persistence make the concession necessary. Another group of reasons has to do with the interests of the corporate officials. It is to enable them to grant special favors to friends; or it is to build up a business in which they are interested; or it is to earn a bribe that has been given them.
The evils of personal discrimination are great. It introduces uncertainty, fear, and danger into all business; it causes business men to waste, socially viewed, an enormous fund of energy to get good rates and to guard against surprises; it grants unearned fortunes and destroys those honestly made; it gives enormous power and presents strong temptations to railroad officials to injure the interests of the stockholders on the one hand and of the public on the other.
§ 12. #Economic power of railroad managers.# Other evils of unregulated private management of railroads appeared. When the railroad was a young industry, it was thought to be simply an iron-track turnpike to which the old English law of common carriers would apply. This and similar notions soon, however, proved illusory. It was seen that the higher railroad officials had, in the granting of transportation service and the fixing of rates, a great economic power. They had complex and sometimes conflicting duties to the stockholders and to the shipping public. They wore their conscience-burdens lightly, before the days of effective regulation, and frequently made little attempt to meet the one and no attempt whatever to meet the other obligation. The opportunities for private speculation brought to many railroad managers great private fortunes. There were no precedents, no ripened public opinion, no established code of ethics, to govern. It was a betrayal of the interests of the stockholders when directors formed "construction companies" and granted contracts to themselves at outrageously high prices. It was an injury not only to shippers, but also to the stockholders, when special rates were granted to friends and to industries in which the directors were interested. In general, however, the interests and rights of the stockholders were more readily recognized than were those of the public. A railroad manager is engaged by the stockholders, is responsible to them, and looks to them for his promotion. Hence their interests are uppermost whenever the welfare of the public is not in harmony with the earning of liberal dividends. The managers long felt bound to defend the principle of "charging what the traffic will bear" in the case of each individual, locality, and kind of goods, even if this ruined some men and enriched others, and if it destroyed the prosperity of cities to increase the earnings of the road.
§ 13. #Political power of railroad managers.# Likewise in various ways railroad managers may exercise great political influence and power. Some writers maintain that the power to make rates on railroads is a power of taxation. They point out that if rates are not subject to fixed rules imposed by the state, the private managers of railroads wield the power of the lawmaker. By changing the rates on foreign exports or imports, the railroads frequently have made or nullified tariff rates and have defeated the intention of the legislature. High rates on state-owned roads in Europe have been used in lieu of protective duties. These facts go to show that a change of railroad rates between two places within the country is similar in effect to the imposing or repeal of tariff duties between them.
The wealth and industrial importance of the railroads soon began to give them widespread political power in other ways. It was commonly charged in some states that the legislature and the courts were "owned" by the railroads. The railroads, in part because they were the victims at times of attempts at blackmail by dishonest public officials, declared that they were compelled, in self-defense to maintain a lobby. The railroad lobby, defensive and offensive, was, in many states, the all-powerful "third house." Railroads even had their agents in the primaries, entered political conventions, dictated nominations from the lowest office up to that of governor, and elected judges and legislators. The extent to which this was done differed according as the railroads had large or small interests within the state. These statements can with approximate truth now be made in the past tense, as was not possible a few years ago. A better code of business morality has developed, and the railroad management's relationship of private trusteeship toward the shareholders and of public trusteeship toward the patrons of the road is now much more fully recognized. The change was not brought about without long and strenuous agitation and effort, educational and legislative, as is in part described below.
§ 14. #Consolidation of railroads#. Gradually the consolidation of the railroad mileage into larger units put into fewer hands greater and greater economic power. The early railroads, many of which were built in sections of a few miles in length, have been slowly welded into continuous trunk lines with many branches. The New York Central between Albany and Buffalo was a consolidation, by Commodore Vanderbilt, of sixteen short lines. The Pennsylvania system was formed link by link from scores of small roads. In the decade of the nineties the growth of consolidation went on more rapidly than ever before. In 1903 it could be said that 60 per cent of the mileage of the United States was under the control of five interests; 75 per cent was controlled by a group of men who could sit about one table. The country was being divided territorially into great railroad domains, within each of which one financial interest was dominant. Since that time the policy of the leading roads has been still further unified by great financial alliances and by the method known as "community of interests."
Toward this result strong economic forces have been working. Consolidation has many technical advantages: it saves time, reduces the unit cost of administration and of handling goods, gives better use of the rolling stock and of the terminal facilities of the railroads, and insures continuous train service. It has the advantage of other large production and the possible economies of the trusts. Most important, however, from the point of view of the railroads, is the prevention of competition and the making possible of higher rates and larger dividends. The statement that competition is not an effective regulator of railroads often is misunderstood to mean that it in no way acts on rates. It is true that competition between roads does not prevent discrimination and excessive charges between stations on one line only; but competition usually has acted powerfully at well-recognized "competing points." The larger the area controlled by one management, the fewer are the competing points; the larger, therefore, is the power over the rate and the more completely the monopoly principle applies. It is a grim jest to say that consolidation does not change the railroad situation as regards the question of rates.
§ 15. #State railroad commissions.# When it became evident that public and private interests in the railroads were so divergent, it still was not easy to determine how the public was to be safeguarded. At first, some general conditions such as maximum rates were inserted in the laws and charters; but these were not adaptable to changing conditions and, for lack of administrative agents, could not be enforced. Some early efforts at state ownership were disastrous. The old law of common carriers gave to individual shippers an uncertain redress in the courts for unreasonable rates; but the remedy was costly because the aggrieved shipper had to employ counsel, to gather evidence, and to risk the penalty of failure; it was slow, for, while delay was death to the shipper's business, cases hung for months or years in the courts; it was ineffectual, for, even when the case was won, the shipper was not repaid for all his losses, and the same discrimination could be immediately repeated against him and other shippers.
In the older Eastern states, attempts to remedy these and other evils by creating some kind of a state railroad commission date back to the fifties of the last century. Massachusetts developed in the seventies a commission of "the advisory type" which investigated and made public the conditions, leaving to public opinion the correction of the evils. A number of the Western states, notably Illinois and Iowa, developed in the seventies commissions of "the strong type," with power to fix rates and to enforce their rulings. The commission principle, strongly opposed at first by the railroads, was upheld by the courts and became established public policy. By 1915 every state and the District of Columbia had a state commission. In Wisconsin and in New York, in 1907, in New Jersey, in 1911, and in many other states since, the "railroad" commissions were replaced by "public utilities" or "public service" commissions, having control not only over the railroads but over street railway, gas, electric light, telephone, and some other corporations. The state commissions have found their chief field in the regulation of local utilities, and they fall far short of a solution of the railroad problem. Altho they from the first did much to make the accounts of the railroads intelligible, something to make the local rates reasonable and subject to rule, and much to educate public sentiment, on the whole their results have been disappointing. It was difficult to get commissioners at once strong, able, and honest; the public did not know its own mind well enough to support the commissions properly; and the courts decided that state commissions could regulate only the traffic originating and ending within the state.
§ 16. #Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act.# Public hostility to private railroad management was greatest in the regions where the most rapid building of roads occurred from 1866 to 1873. One center of grievances was in "the granger states' of Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota; another center was in the oil regions of Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Eastern states were not without their troubles, for the report of the Hepburn Committee of the New York legislature in 1879 showed that discrimination between shippers prevailed to an almost incredible degree in every portion of New York state. When the courts, in 1886, decided that the greater portion of the railroad rates could not be treated by state commissions, national control was loudly demanded. Scores of bills were presented to Congress between 1870 and 1886, and, despite much opposition, the Interstate Commerce Act was passed in 1887.
The act laid down some general rules: that rates should be just and reasonable; that railroads should not pool, or agree to divide, their earnings to avoid competition; that they should, under similar conditions, and, unless expressly excused, fix rates in accordance with the long- and short-haul principle (to charge no more for a shorter distance than for a longer one on the same line and in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer). The act provided for a commission of five men, to be appointed by the President, which might require uniform accounts from the railroads, and which should enforce the provisions of the act.
§ 17. #Working of the Act.# The commission in its earlier years gave promise of effectiveness, but its powers, as interpreted by the courts, proved inadequate to its assigned task. The railroads in many cases refused to obey its orders, and court decisions paralyzed its activity. Competent authorities declared in 1901, after fourteen years of the commission's operation, that discrimination never had been worse, and a series of exposures of abuses strengthened the popular demand for stricter legislation. The result was first the Elkins' Act of 1903, aimed at discrimination and rebates, and then the Hepburn Act Of 1906, which marked a new era in railroad regulation in this country. The commission was increased to seven members, its authority was extended to include express, sleeping car, and other agencies of transportation, and it was given the power to fix maximum rates, not to be suspended by the courts without a hearing. It became thus unquestionably a commission of "the strong type." It began to exercise its new powers with vigor, and the carriers reluctantly accepted its authority. Responsive to a calmer but insistent popular demand further amendments were made by the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, which strengthened the long-and-short-haul clause, and gave to the commission, among other new powers, that of suspending new rates proposed by carriers. A special Commerce Court of five judges was created with exclusive jurisdiction in certain classes of railroad cases, but this was abolished after a short trial.
It cannot be said that a final satisfactory solution of the railroad problem has been attained; indeed, in most human affairs such a thing is unattainable. But it can be said that there is no considerable sentiment anywhere in favor of reversing the railroad policy that has been developed, as here briefly outlined. Certainly the public has no such sentiment, and the railroads, which for many years opposed the progress of strong federal control, are now foremost in advocacy of a policy of exclusive national regulation, to remedy the evil of "forty-nine masters."
§ 18. #Public nature of the railroad franchise.# A pretty definite public opinion regarding the nature of the problem has emerged from the nearly half-century of experience and discussion, since the first vigorous agitation of the subject in the seventies of the last century. Railroads in our country are owned by private corporations and are managed by private citizens, not, as in some countries, by public officials. They have been built by private enterprise, in the interest of the investors, not as a charity or as a public benefaction. Railroad-building appears thus at first glance to be a case of free competition where public interests are served in the following of private interests. But, looked at more closely, it may be seen to be in many ways different from the ordinary competitive business. Competition would make the building of railroads a matter of bargain with proprietors along the line, and an obdurate farmer could compel a long detour or could block the whole undertaking. But the public says: a public enterprise is of more importance than the interests of a single farmer. By charter or by franchise the railroad is granted the power of eminent domain, whereby the property of private citizens may be taken from them at an appraised valuation. The manufacturer, enjoying no such privilege, can only by ordinary purchase obtain a site urgently needed for his business. Why may the railway exercise the sovereign power of government as against the private property rights of others? Because the railway is peculiarly "affected with a public interest." The primary object is not to favor the railroads, but to benefit the community. These charters and franchises are granted sparingly in most European countries. In this country they have been granted recklessly, often in general laws, by states keen in their rivalry for railroad extension. When thus great public privileges had been granted without reserve to private corporations, it was realized, too late in many cases, that a mistake had been made and that an impossible situation had been created.
§ 19. #Other peculiar privileges of railroads.# Further, do the various grants of lands and money to the railroads make them other than mere private enterprises? One answer, that of those financially interested in the railroads, was No. They said that the bargain was a fair one, and was then closed. The public gave because it expected benefit; the corporation fulfilled its agreement by building the road. The terms of the charter, as granted, determined the rights of the public; but no new terms could later be read into it, even tho the public came to see the question in a new light. Similar grants, tho not so large, have been made to other industries. Sugar-factories were given bounties; iron-forges and woolen-mills were favored by tariffs; factories have been given, by competing cities, land and exemption from taxation; yet these enterprises have not on that account, been treated, thereafter, in any exceptional way. So, it was said, the railroad was still merely a private business.
But the social answer is stronger than this. The privileges of railroads are greater in amount and more important in character than those granted to any ordinary private enterprise. The legislatures recognize constantly the peculiar public functions of the railroads. In other private enterprises, investors take all the risk; legislatures and courts recognize the duty of guarding, where possible, the investment of capital in railroads. Laws have been passed in several states to protect the railroads against ticket-scalping. Whenever the question comes before them, the courts maintain the right of the railroads to earn a fair dividend. Private enterprise has been invited to undertake a public work, yet public interests are paramount.
§ 20. #Private and public interests to be harmonized.# If an extremely abstract view is taken there is danger of losing sight of the real problem, which is that of harmonizing these two interests in thought and in public policy. Yet the extreme advocates of the private control of railroads for a long time resented indignantly any public interference with railroad rates and with railroad management as an infringement of individual liberty. Before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, in 1887, this position was inconsistently taken by those in whose interests free competition had been violently set aside at the very outset of railroad construction, and for whom governmental interference had made possible great fortunes. It has become generally recognized that the railroads ought not to be allowed to change from a public to a private character just as it suits their convenience. True, they are private enterprises as regards the character of the investment, but they are public enterprises as to their privileges, functions, and obligations.
Finally, it might be said that if there were none of these special reasons for the public control of railways, there is an all-sufficient general reason in the fact that a railroad is always, in some respects and to some degree, a monopoly. Therefore, the railroad problem may be viewed as but one aspect of the general problem of monopoly. To other aspects of this problem we are now to turn our attention.
[Footnote 1: Returns for 1915. The following figures are from the census taken in 1909.]
[Footnote 2: See A.T. Hadley, "Railroad Transportation," pp. 10, 32.]
[Footnote 3: See Vol. I, pp. 437, 438, 443.]
CHAPTER 28
THE PROBLEM OF INDUSTRIAL MONOPOLY
§ 1. Kinds of monopoly. § 2. Political sources of monopoly. § 3. Natural agents as sources of monopoly. § 4. Capitalistic monopoly; aspects of the problem. § 5. Industrial monopoly and fostering conditions. § 6. Growth of large industry in the nineteenth century. § 7. Methods of forming combinations. § 8. Growth of combinations after 1880. § 9. The great period of trust formation. § 10. Height of the movement toward combinations. § 11. Motive to avoid competition. § 12. Motive to effect economies. § 13. Profits from monopoly and gains of promoters. § 14. Monopoly's power to raise prices.
§ 1. #Kinds of monopoly.# Monopolies may, for special purposes, be classified as selling or buying, producing or trading, lasting or temporary, general or local, monopolies. The terms selling or buying monopoly explain themselves, tho the latter conflicts with the etymology.[1] Under conditions of barter the selling and the buying monopoly would be the same thing in two aspects. A selling monopoly is by far the more common, but a buying monopoly may be connected with it. A large oil-refining corporation that sells most of the product may by various methods succeed in driving out the competitors who would buy the crude oil. It thus becomes practically the only outlet for the oil product, and the owners of the land thus must share their ownership with the buying monopoly by accepting, within certain limits, the price it fixes. The Hudson Bay Company, dealing in furs, had practically this sort of power in North America. Many instances can be found, yet, relatively to the selling monopolies, those of the buying kind are rare.
A producing monopoly is one controlling the manufacture or the source of supply of an article; a trading monopoly is one controlling the avenues of commerce between the source and the consumers.
Monopolies are lasting or temporary, according to the duration of control. By far the larger number are of the temporary sort, because high prices strongly stimulate efforts to develop other sources of supply. Yet the average profits of a monopoly may be large throughout a succession of periods of high and low prices.
Monopolies are general or local, according to the extent of territory where their power is felt. At its maximum where transportation and other costs most effectually shut out competition, monopoly power shades off to zero on the border-line of competitive territory. The frequent use of the adjectives partial, limited, and virtual are implied but usually superfluous recognitions of the relative character of monopoly.
§ 2. #Political sources of monopoly.# Monopoly gets its power from various sources. A political monopoly derives its power of control from a special grant from the government, forbidding others to engage in that business. The typical political monopoly is that conferred by a crown patent bestowing the exclusive right to carry on a certain business. A second kind is that conferred by a patent for invention, or the copyright on books, the object of which is to stimulate invention, research, and writing by giving the full control and protection of the government to the inventor and the writer or their assignees. In this case the privilege is socially earned by the monopolist; it is not gotten for nothing. Moreover, the patent, being limited in time, expires and becomes a social possession. A third kind is a governmental monopoly for purposes of revenue. In France and Japan the governments control the tobacco trade, and the high price charged for tobacco makes this monopoly yield large revenues. A fourth kind is that derived from franchises for public service corporations, such as those supplying electricity, gas and water. These franchises are granted to private capitalists to induce them to invest capital in enterprises that are helpful to the community.
§ 3. #Natural agents as sources of monopoly.# "Economic" monopoly, so-called, arises when the ownership of scarce natural agents, as mines, land, water-power, comes under the control of one man or one group of men who agree on a price. Economic monopoly is a result of private property that is undesigned by the government or by society. It is exceptional, considering the whole range of private property, but it is important. The oil-wells embracing the main sources of the world's supply have largely come under one control. One corporation may control so many of the richest iron mines of the country as to be able to fix a price different from that which would result under competition. Coal mines, especially those of some peculiar and limited kind, such as anthracite, appear to become easily an object of monopolization. Economic monopoly merges into political monopolies, such as patents and franchises. Private property is a political institution designed to further social welfare, and only rarely is property in any particular business a monopoly. Private control of great natural resources might have been prevented in many cases had it been foreseen.
§ 4. #Capitalistic monopoly; aspects of the problem.# Capitalistic monopoly, variously called contractual, organized, commercial or industrial monopoly, arises when men unite their wealth to control a market, to overpower or intimidate opposition, and to keep out or limit competition by the mere magnitude of their wealth. These various kinds so merge into each other that they cannot always be distinguished in practice. A patent may help a capitalistic monopoly in getting control of a market; great wealth may enable a company to get control of rare natural resources.
In the discussion of industrial monopoly, the problem now before us, there is a good deal of vagueness and misunderstanding because of lack of definiteness in the use of words which have rapidly shifted in meaning. The word "trust" originally applied, and still in legal usage applies, to a particular form of organization, that of a board of trustees holding the stock, and thus unifying the control, of two or more formerly separate enterprises. The Standard Oil Company at one time had this form of organization, which was declared by the courts to be illegal (ultra vires) for corporations. Now "trust" often is used in the sense of a corporation having monopoly power in some degree; either broadly, of any monopolistic corporation (including railways and local public utilities), or, oftener, limited to manufacturing and commercial monopolies, otherwise called "industrial trusts" in contrast with franchise trusts and railroads.[2] The word "combination" referred originally to a more or less thoro "merger," with a view to attaining monopolistic power, of a number of formerly separate organizations, as in the case of the United States Steel Corporation. But the word is often used as if it were a synonym for trust (in a narrower or wider sense) even as applied to a single enterprise that has grown to be monopolistic. A "trust" in the legal sense of a form of organization, and "combinations" as above defined, might have no monopoly power whatever; whereas a monopoly may be possessed by an individual owner (e.g., of a patent right, railroad, waterworks plant), or by a single corporation that has simply grown monopolistic without the trust form of organization or without combination.
Now it is evident that the real problem is that of monopoly, however attained. Monopoly may be defined as such a degree of control over the supply of goods in a given market that a net gain will result if a portion is withheld.[3] In accord with growing and now dominant usage it is well to observe the following meanings in our discussion. "Combination" is a term referring particularly to one method by which monopolies are formed. "Trust," in the now popular sense, is best limited to an industrial, primarily manufacturing, enterprise or group of enterprises, with some degree of monopoly power due not to a "special franchise" giving the use of streets and highways and the right of eminent domain, nor to a single patent, but to a group of favoring technical, financial, and economic conditions. The trust may consist of a single establishment; or of a group of establishments separately operated but united in a "pool" to divide output, territory, or earnings; or of such a group held together by a holding company, or combined into one corporation. Public utility is the name of special franchise enterprises of the kind just mentioned, including, in the broad sense, railroads and local utilities such as street railways, gas, water, and electric light-plants.
§ 5. #Industrial monopoly and fostering conditions.# The problem of monopoly is probably as old as markets. From the first coming together of groups of men to trade there were doubtless efforts made by some individuals and groups of traders to manipulate conditions so as to get higher prices than they could get in a free and open market.[4] There are traces of these practices in ancient times, and the history of the Middle Ages is full of evidences both of monopolistic practices and of the efforts to prevent or control them.
If this fact is borne in mind it may help us to distinguish in thought four features of enterprise that are readily and constantly confused, viz: large individual capital, large production, corporate organization, and monopoly.[5] Evidently any one of these features may appear without the other; e.g., a person of large aggregate capital may have his investments distributed among a large number of small enterprises, such as farms, without a trace of corporate organization or monopoly, and numerous examples could be given of large production, or of corporate organization, or of monopoly without one or more of the other features.
But the presence of any one of these features is a favoring condition for the development of the others. Hence they are frequently found together, and of late this occurs increasingly. It is difficult to say in every, indeed in any, case which feature has been cause and which effect in this development, but, on the whole, large production seems to have been primary. Itself made possible by inventions, by better transportation, and by the widening of markets, it in turn helped to build up large individual fortunes, and then to create a need for the corporate form of organization. And monopoly power no doubt is more easily gained by large aggregations of capital in a corporation having the advantages of large production.
§ 6. #Growth of large industry in the nineteenth century.# The great recent growth of the monopoly problem is in part to be explained as the result of the growth of large industry, not as the sole cause, but as a favoring condition. Before the middle of the last century a tool-using household industry, on farms and in homes where the greater part of the things used were produced in the family, was still the typical organization in the United States.[6] A family produced somewhat more than it needed of food and cloth and exchanged with its neighbors; so with shoes, candles, soap, and cured meats. The early factories growing out of the household industry were small. Since that time two counter forces have been at work to affect the ratio of manufacturing establishments to population. The number of small establishments has been increased by the many industries producing the things once made on farms, and by increasing demands for comforts and luxuries. Many establishments producing the staple products that can be transported have been consolidated or have been enlarged, so that the unit of production now averages much larger. The number of cotton-weaving factories was about the same in 1900 as it had been seventy years earlier, while population has grown six fold. Iron- and steel-mills were fewer in 1900 than in 1880. In industries having local markets or local sources of materials, such as grist mills and saw mills, the change in numbers was less, for many small establishments were started in outlying districts at the same time that the mills became larger in the great population centers. But the average number of employees and the average capital per establishment increased in every period between census enumerations.
§ 7. #Methods of forming combinations.# Combinations of previously independent enterprises may be more or less complete and are made by different methods. Four major methods are:
(1) The pool, by which the enterprises continue to be separately operated, but divide the traffic (or output), or the earnings, or the territory, in prearranged proportions.
(2) The trust, in a legal sense (as defined above in section 5).
(3) The holding company, a corporation with the sole purpose of holding the shares of stock, or a controlling number of them, in various corporations otherwise nominally independent.
(4) Consolidation into one company.
At least five minor methods may be distinguished; these are here numbered continuously with the preceding four.
(5) Lease by one company of the plants of one or more other companies.
(6) Ownership of stock by one corporation in another corporation, sufficient to give substantial influence over its policy, if not absolute control.
(7) Ownership of stock in two or more competing companies, by the same individual or group of individuals, to such an extent as appreciably to unify the policies of the competing companies.
(8) Interlocking directorates, that is, boards of competing companies containing one or more of the same persons as directors.
(9) Gentlemen's agreements, mere friendly informal conferences and understandings as to common policies.
§ 8. #Growth of combinations after 1880.# Undoubtedly industry before 1860 had some elements of monopoly. Monopoly constituted part of the banking problem; it began to be evident in the railroads almost at once, and it rapidly increased as street railways and other public utilities were constructed. But after 1880 occurred the formation in larger numbers of industrial enterprises which appeared to exercise some monopoly power. In the years between 1890 and 1900 this movement was still more rapid. Consolidation took place on a great scale in railroads and in manufactures. Much of this has been of such a kind that it does not appear at all in the figures showing the number of establishments and of employees. In the data regarding this movement given by different authorities, many discrepancies appear, as there is no generally accepted rule by which to determine the selection of the companies to be included in the lists. One financial authority gave the following figures[7] regarding the industrial companies reorganized into larger units in the United States between 1860 and 1899, not including combinations in such businesses as banking, shipping, and railroad transportation. Some of the enterprises here included have much and others probably have little or no monopolistic power.
Decade Number Organized Total Nominal Capital
1860-60 …………… 2 $ 13,000,000 1870-79 …………… 4 135,000,000 1880-89 …………… 18 288,000,000 1890-99 …………… 157 3,150,000,000 ———————- ——— ———————- Total, 40 years …….. 181 $3,586,000,000
§ 9. #The great period of trust formation.# The number of trusts organized and the capital represented by this movement in the last of these decades were seven times as great as in the thirty years preceding. The figures by years for the decade 1890-1899 are as follows:
Decade Number Organized Total Nominal Capital
1890 ………………. 6 $82,000,000 1891 ………………. 13 168,000,000 1892 ………………. 13 140,000,000 1893 ………………. 5 226,000,000 1894 ………………. 2 35,000,000 1895 ………………. 7 104,000,000 1896 ………………. 3 40,000,000 1897 ………………. 6 93,000,000 1898 ………………. 22 574,000,000 1899 ………………. 80 1,688,000,000 ———————— —— ——————— Total, 10 years ……… 157 $3,150,000,000
The influence of great prosperity shows in the large number of combinations; but in 1893, the number was less, altho the total nominal capital (stocks and bonds) was still the greatest it had ever been in any year. Then came the period of depression, 1894-97, when both the numbers and the capital were comparatively small. Then from 1898 to 1901 followed the period of the greatest formation of trusts the world has ever seen.
The list of these four years contains the names of the most widely known American combinations, a few of which are here given with the years of their formation: 1898, American Thread, National Biscuit; 1899, Amalgamated Copper, American Woolen, Royal Baking Powder, Standard Oil of N.J., American Hide and Leather, United Shoe Machinery, American Window Glass; 1900, Crucible Steel, American Bridge; 1901, United States Steel Corporation, Consolidated Tobacco, Eastman Kodak, American Locomotive.
§ 10. #Height of the movement toward combinations.# In a list by another authority[8] it appears that the data for all industrial trusts are in round numbers as follows:
Number of
Plants Acquired Total
Date Number or Controlled Nominal Capital
Jan. 1, 1904 318 5288 $7,246,000,000
These figures compared with those given above would indicate that the industrial trusts had about doubled in the years 1900-1903 inclusive. Probably most of this growth was in the years 1900 and 1901; then the movement became very slow, because, as is generally believed, of the aroused public opinion, of more vigorous prosecution by the government, and of additional legislation against trusts. The authority last cited gives in a more comprehensive list, in six groups, all the monopolistic combinations in the United States, at the date of January 1, 1904, as follows (the figures just given above being the totals of the first three groups):
No. of Plants Total Nominal
Groups Number Acquired or Controlled Capital
1. Greater industrial
trusts 7 1528 $2,260,000,000
2. Lesser industrial
trusts 298 3426 4,055,000,000
3. Other industrial
trusts in process
of reorganization
or readjustment 13 334 528,000,000
4. Franchise trusts 111 1336 3,735,000,000
5. Great steam
railroad groups 6 790 9,017,000,000
6. Allied independent 10 250 380,000,000
—- ——- ———————
Total, 445 8664 $20,000,000,000
§ 11. #Motive to avoid competition.# This remarkable movement toward the formation of united corporations from formerly independent enterprises called forth a variety of explanations. The organizers of trusts gave as the first explanation of their action that it was the necessary result of excessive competition. It is not to be denied that a hard fight and lower prices often preceded the formation of the trusts. But as this excessive competition usually is begun for the very purpose of forcing others into a combination, this explanation is a begging of the question. It is fallacious also in that it ignores the marginal principle in the problem of profits. Profits are never the same in all factories, and to those manufacturers that are on the margin competition may appear excessive. It generally has been the largest and strongest factories, in the more favored situations, that, in order to get rid of troublesome competitors, have forced the smaller, weaker, industries to come into the trust. In other cases the smaller enterprises have been eager to be taken in at a good price, altho they might have continued to operate independently with moderate profits. When, therefore, it is said that competition is destructive, it may be a partial truth, but more likely it is a pleasantry reflecting the happy humor of the prosperous promoters of the combination.
§ 12. #Motive to effect economies.# Another advantage of the combination of competing plants that was strongly emphasized was the economy of large production.[9] The economies that are possible within a single factory may be still greater in a number of combined or federated industries. The cost of management, amount of stock carried, advertising, cost of selling the product, may all be smaller per unit of product. Each independent factory must send its drummers into every part of the country to seek business. In combination they can divide the territory, visit every merchant and get larger orders at smaller cost. A large aggregation can control credit better and escape losses from bad debts. By regulating and equalizing the output in the different localities, it can run more nearly full time. Being acquainted with the entire situation, it can reduce the friction. A combination has advantages in shipment. It can have a clearing-house for orders and ship from the nearest source of supply. The least efficient factories can be first closed when demand falls off. Factories can be specialized to produce that for which each is best fitted. The magnitude of the industry and its presence in different localities often, in the period of trust formation, served to strengthen its influence with the railroads, and to increase its political as well as its economic power.
Another phase of corporate growth is the "integration of industry," that is, the grouping under one control of a whole series of industries. One company may carry the iron ore through all the processes from the mine to the finished product. A railroad line across the continent owns its own steamers for shipping goods to Asia or Europe. Large wholesale houses own or control the output of entire factories.
§ 13. #Profits from monopoly and gains of promoters.# There are, however, well-recognized limitations to the economy of large production in the single establishment,[10] and of late there has been ever-increasing skepticism as to the net economy actually attributable to combinations. Undoubtedly the merging of a number of old plants has sometimes effected an immediate improvement in the weaker ones. A new broom sweeps clean. This movement chanced to be contemporaneous with the development of "efficiency engineering," and of "scientific cost-accounting," and these better methods, already developed and applied in comparatively small plants, could be more quickly extended to the other plants brought into the combination. Moreover, the personal organizations in the separate enterprises had been brought to a high state of efficiency by the stimulus of competition, and there is reason to fear that, after some years of centralized bureaucratic organization, much of this efficiency may be lost.
There seems no doubt that the strong motive for forming combinations is the profit to the organizers.[11] Whatever was the more generous motive or more fundamental economic reason assigned by the promoters, the investing public confidently expected that higher prices would be the chief result. There are indirect as well as direct gains to the promoters of a combination. There is the gain from the production and sale of goods to consumers, and there is the gain from the financial management, from the rise and fall in the value of stock. The promoters of a combination often expect to make from sales to the investing public far more than from sales to the consumer of the product. A season of prosperity and confidence, when trusts and their enormous profits are constantly discussed, has an effect on the public mind like that of the gold discoveries in California and in the Klondike. Then is the time for the promoter to offer shares without limit to investors.
§ 14. #Monopoly's power to raise prices#. There is no doubt that the formation of a combination from competing plants can and does give a control over prices, a monopoly power, not possessed by the separate competing establishments. The same kind of power might be attained by the growth of one establishment outstripping all its competitors, or by a new enterprise coming into the field backed by powerful capitalists. But this would work slower and less extensive results than does the formation of a combination.
Of course, the fundamental principles of price cannot be changed by a trust; a selling monopoly can affect price only as it affects supply or demand.[12] The strongest trust yet seen has not been omnipotent. Many careless expressions on the subject are heard even from ordinarily careful writers and speakers: "The trust can fix its own prices," "has unlimited control," "can determine what it will pay and for what it will sell." This implies that trusts are benevolent, seeing that the prices they charge are usually not far in excess of competitive prices in the past. Such a view overlooks the forces that limit the price a monopoly can charge. If the supply remains the same, no trust can make the price go higher. The monopoly usually directs its efforts to affecting the supply, leaving the price to adjust itself. It can affect the supply either by lessening its own output or by intimidating and forcing out its competitors. It is true that this logical order is not always the order of events. The trust may not first limit the supply, and then wait for prices to adjust themselves; it may first raise its prices, but unless it is prepared to limit the supply in accordance with the new resulting conditions of demand, such action would be vain. The control of the sources of supply is the logical explanation of the higher price, even tho the limitation of supply is effected later by successive acts found necessary to maintain the higher price.
The report of the Federal Industrial Commission, which, from 1898 to 1901, investigated the trusts, showed that immediately upon their formation, the industrial combinations had raised their prices.[13] Prices might be lowered again but only when and where competition became troublesome, thus causing either "price-wars" or discrimination.
[Footnote 1: See Vol. I, p. 76.]
[Footnote 2: As in the list in sec. 8, below.]
[Footnote 3: See Vol. I, chs. 8 and 31.]
[Footnote 4: See Vol. I, ch. 8, on competition and monopoly, and ch. 31, on monopoly prices and large production. An understanding of the definitions and of the general principles distinguishing competition and monopoly is a necessary prerequisite to a profitable discussion of the practical problem of monopoly.]
[Footnote 5: See Vol. I, p. 267, on capital; pp. 388-393, on large production. See also references in preceding note on monopoly; and ch. 27, secs. 1 and 2, on corporate organization.]
[Footnote 6: See above, ch. 26, sec. 3; and ch. 25, secs. 6 and 7.]
[Footnote 7: Compiled from data given by "The Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin," reprinted in "The Commercial Year Book," Vol. V, 1900, pp. 564-569.]
[Footnote 8: John Moody, "The Truth About the Trusts," 1904]
[Footnote 9: See Vol. I, pp. 388-393.]
[Footnote 10: See Vol. I, pp. 391-392.]
[Footnote 11: See Vol. I, p. 334, on the function of the promoter.]
[Footnote 12: See Vol. I, pp. 80-85, 382-387, 394-396.]
[Footnote 13: A summary of this evidence is given in the author's
"Principles of Economics" (1904), pp. 327-330. A fuller outline of
the results of the Commission's conclusions may be found in "The Trust
Problem," by J.W. Jenks, who acted as expert in the investigation.]