and capital of the entire United States. Property in its nature means exclusive right of control, and these men have in their hands these exclusive rights. But our bread, our subsistence, comes from the operation of productive economic forces. Have those who draw this bread from these unified productive forces a power which brings about that equilibrium which maintains interdependence and independence? We remember what Shakespeare said about economic control:

"You take my house when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house; you take my life
When you do take the means whereby I live."

While the fact of unprecedented power is admitted by our editorial writers, the hope is generally expressed that it will be used wisely, and sometimes dark hints are given as to what may follow if this power is misused. Our magnates have again and again been impressively told that the tremendousness of their power is almost appalling, and we are then reassured by grave utterances concerning the sobering effect of power. At bottom, protection is sought in the appeal to good will to the benevolence of our industrial conquerors, our economic Alexanders and Cæsars. What are the lessons of history? Does past experience teach us that we may place our hope for economic well-being wholly or in part in the benevolence of any class of men, even the most estimable? Or, turning to the deductive argu

ment, does our observation of human nature, even at the best, lead us to think this is a safe procedure? When we question ourselves, do we think we could stand such a test? Noteworthy and impressive in this connection is the following utterance of the late Benjamin Harrison: "The man whose protection from wrong rests wholly upon the benevolence of another man or of a congress is a slave—a man without rights."

III. Remedies

If we are not quite satisfied with appeals to benevolence, or even to an enlightened self-interest, that looks ahead and endeavors to avoid remote and long-delayed evils, we must pursue our quest for remedies farther.

One of the first things to be asked is this: Admitting that appeals to individuals and exhortation addressed to the great ones of the industrial world may produce gratifying individual action, is it possible that such individual action can produce a social system? There seems to be a growing conviction on the part of the general public that such is not the case; and in this growing conviction is to be found the explanation of the gratifying fact that we are able to find no general inclination to blame the men who have played a leading rôle in the vast industrial combinations of the present time. The general public is awed, almost dazed, by the stupendousness of industrial events, but

reproaches are not hurled against our economic kings. Mr. Tom L. Johnson, mayor of Cleveland, is reported to have said in Congress that as a private citizen he would take advantage of conditions favorable to monopoly, but that so far from aiding to pass laws calculated to build up monopoly, he would do all in his power to defeat any proposals for new laws of this character, and would likewise exert himself to secure the repeal of existing law calculated to promote monopoly. There is a general inclination to believe that this is a sound and thoroughly ethical course of action; and one finds oneself wondering at times how many of our magnates are socialists at heart, working out as best they can their theories.

Our presentation of remedies must depend upon the kind of society in which we believe. Do we desire an essentially competitive order of society? If so, we should remember that if competition is to be maintained permanently and to work smoothly, with absence of bitterness and industrial warfare, the number of competitors must be large. Farmers cannot combine into one monopolistic group because there are too many of them, and for that same reason one farmer does not feel that personal blame attaches to his neighbor for the low price of wheat. This consideration of numbers is one important method of determining where we may and where we may not have competition. We see then one reason why in the case of the transportation agencies, gas-works, and many other kinds of

business, we must have monopoly, with an option only between public and private monopoly.

Let us, then, in the fewest possible words, consider the nature of effective remedies for the evils of monopolies and trusts. First of all, we must not place the slightest confidence in any measures which forbid the growth of business or combinations on the part of persons engaged in business. when they find it advantageous for them to enter into combinations. The so-called anti-trust legislation of the American commonwealths has produced harm and can produce nothing but harm. So far from lessening the concentration of production, it has rather increased it. Looser forms of combination in the face of anti-trust legislation have made way for closer and more effective unions. How these are to be prevented while the laws of private property are still maintained, is something which it is not easy to understand. Nor is it easy to see precisely what it is hoped will be accomplished by the sort of legislation which has been tried in so many of our states, and also by our federal government, with the possible exception of the federal legislation of 1903. It does not at all deal with causes, but touches only surface phenomena. must go down far enough to reach underlying causes if we would accomplish any results. Among remedies, first of all mention must be made of education. General education should be prepare every boy and girl earnest attention should be

so developed as to for life. The same

We

given by our commonwealths to the education of our youth for civic life which Germany gives to the preparation of her young men for military life. If the best brains of the country were earnestly devoted to the preparation of our young people for civic life, and if money were as freely expended for this preparation as in Germany for the army, we should have wonderful results. We have a struggle for life. This it is not desirable to abolish. It is desirable to give for it the most thorough preparation. But in addition to general education a training in economics is needed which will lift to a higher plane our economic discussions and will render impossible the serious consideration which is so often given among us to quack remedies for economic evils.

In the second place, we must take up earnestly the problem of natural monopolies. The time has gone by for a discussion of the question, Shall monopolies be publicly controlled or not? The principle of control is accepted by every thinking person and is a well-recognized principle of jurisprudence in every civilized land. The question which has not been fully decided is this: Shall we have public control of private property interests in undertakings which fall under the head of natural monopolies, or shall social control be an outcome of public property with public management? To put it more concretely: Shall we have private gasworks with a state gas commission to exercise control over them, as in Massachusetts, or shall