Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/242

 THE CONTROL OF TRUSTS.

Several years ago I prepared for this Journal' a sketch of "Anti-Monopoly Legislation in the United States," in which I endeavored to trace the origin and growth of the sentiment against capitalistic combinations and to form some estimate of the value of the laws which had been enacted to prevent them. The conclusion then reached was that the popular opposition to the so-called trusts was based in part upon an unreasoned accept- ance of the laissez-faire doctrine implied in our earlier political philosophy, in part upon the fear of the political consequences of the concentration of vast economic resources in a few great corporations, in part upon the real and fancied injustices and hardships brought about by the trusts already formed. As to the efficiency of the laws, it was held that, while they might har- ass trade to some extent, they would one and all fail to accom- plish the real end in view.

The outcome has justified this view. The laws were already proving unserviceable three years ago, and they have now been almost wholly discredited in the public mind. From the end of the year 1893 to the beginning of 1899 there was no important anti-trust legislation, partly because of the apparent failure of laws already passed, but chiefly because very few large concerns were organized during the period of business depression. But with the return of prosperity and the tremendous expansion of American manufactures, many gigantic organizations have been formed ; and the public mind has become more alarmed than ever before. Accordingly, a new attempt has been made in sev- eral of the states to stop the movement. Laws have been passed by the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, and Michigan, which are supposed to represent the perfection of anti-trust legislation.

The first of these acts, that of Arkansas, approved March 6, 1899, was bodily incorporated in the more extensive law of Texas, and the Arkansas description of " conspiracy to defraud"

■Vol. II, pp. 411-25.

228