Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/223

 ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT TOWARD TRUSTS 209

making political capital, though this may be a mistaken infer- ence. State and national legislation has been enacted, courts have rendered decisions, further combination has, in some instances, been enjoined ; but from all appearances no perma- nent solution has been adduced.

Much as has been said, both pro and con, upon this question, one need not apologize for attempting something new, or even a repetition of old arguments in a new way; for should no influ- ence be manifested upon others, the author himself will have gained much that may materially aid him in taking action. Realizing the difficulty of intelligently discussing the action that has been taken on the trust problem, and much more in attempt- ing an offer of suggestions for a solution, without understanding the real nature of that problem, I propose to discuss the three following divisions:

1. The true nature of the trust problem, so far as it applies to industrial combinations, exclusive of railroad mergers.

2. The action that has been taken toward the movement by legislatures and courts.

3. The attitude that should be assumed toward the concen- tration of capital in order to preserve the benefits of that move- ment, at the same time eliminating, as far as possible, the dangers connected therewith.

Now, as to the first, what is the true nature of the trust pro- blem ; that is, is the question, How shall we destroy or prevent combination and concentration? or is it, How shall we utilize and control, if need be, the consolidated units? To give an answer, one must consider the movement itself and determine whether it is the resultant of natural economic forces, or merely an artificial device for reaping great returns by the capitalist at the expense of the public, and endangering the existence of free government.

While it is true that, in the recent craze for combination, the movement has been characterized somewhat by a spirit of specu- lation, yet the general movement has been the result of economic forces. Everyone recognizes that the change from domestic manufacture to the factory system was an economic one, but some are inclined to doubt as to the more recent consolidation