LITERATURE

Of many references which could be given, a few books only will be mentioned.

BAKER, CHAS. WHITING, Monopolies and the People. 3d ed.

New York, 1899. An interesting work in which the author attempts to formulate the laws of competition. BOLEN, GEORGE L., The Plain Facts as to the Trusts and the Tariff. New York, 1903. This is a popular work, giving much valuable information. Quotations from many different sources, presenting a variety of opinions, constitute a special feature of the book. Chicago Conference on Trusts. Chicago, 1900. This gives the proceedings of the most important gathering as yet held for the discussion of trusts. The Conference was held in Chicago September, 1899. It presents the views of many leading thinkers upon the subject, and gives a general survey of the field which is not easily found elsewhere.

CLARK, JOHN B., The Control of Trusts. New York, 1902.

The idea of Professor Clark is that the only dangerous element in the trusts is the power of monopoly, and that this can be removed or regulated.

ELY, RICHARD T., Monopolies and Trusts. New York, 1900. The distinctive feature of this book is the attention given to the theory of monopoly, the author holding that the combinations called trusts cannot profitably be discussed until monopoly is correctly defined and its significance understood.

GUNTON, GEORGE, Trusts and the Public. New York, 1899. A presentation of the subject from the point of view friendly to the trusts. The author, however, makes a distinction between good trusts and bad trusts, and is by no means an indiscriminate advocate.

JENKS, J. W., The Trust Problem. New York, 1900. The author favors the control of trusts, and presents in this

little book a great deal of information which he gathered while serving as the expert agent of the United States Industrial Commission and as consulting expert of the United States Department of Labor.

LLOYD, HENRY D., Wealth against Commonwealth.

New

York, 1894. An arraignment of the Standard Oil Trust. MACROSTY, HENRY W., Trusts and the State. A Sketch of Competition. London, 1901. The author of this book is a Fabian socialist, and like the socialists in general fails to distinguish adequately between what is simply large-scale production and monopolistic production. The socialist finds monopoly everywhere, and thinks it is only a matter of time when every branch of production will be fully monopolized. This view colors the treatment of trusts by socialists. The present work, however, is one which, notwithstanding these defects, is worthy of careful study, especially on account of the information which it gives concerning English industry.

NETTLETON, A. B., Trusts or Competition. Chicago, 1900.

Quotations are given presenting both sides of the question. United States Industrial Commission, Report of. Washington, 1900. Vol. I, Trusts and Industrial Combinations. Vol. II, Trusts and Corporation Laws. Vol. XIII, Industrial Combinations. Vol. XIX, Miscellaneous (giving a review of the treatment in the earlier volumes). gives the results of the most important investigation of the subject as yet made under the direction of public authority.

This

CHAPTER V

MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL MONOPOLIES; WITH A NOTE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A

PARCELS POST AND THE NATIONAL OWNERSHIP OF THE TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, AND RAILWAY.

I. Municipal Ownership of Natural Monopolies

THE question under discussion relates to the ownership and management of those local businesses which furnish what are called public utilities. The principal classes of these public utilities are water, light, and transportation. They are called monopolies because, as we know from experience, we cannot have in their case effective and permanent competition.

It is often said that we do not want to decide the question of municipal ownership in accordance with general principles, but that each case should be decided as it arises. If New York City desires. public ownership of waterworks, it is urged, let New York City by all means try the experiment; but let New Haven, if the people of that city so desire, continue private ownership of waterworks. Still others say, let us adhere to private ownership until we find that we have made a serious

mistake in so doing. Both these attitudes imply the renunciation of science, or a denial of the possibility of a scientific solution of the problem. Imagine such an attitude in engineering as applied, let us say, to bridge-building. The result would surely be disaster. The outcome of this attitude in what we may call applied economics or social engineering has likewise been disastrous. Mistakes have been made which it has not been possible to correct, or which have been corrected with great loss. The private ownership of waterworks in London, which still persists, although recognized to be an evil many years ago, affords an illustration. If at length this evil is corrected, it will cost the taxpayers many millions of dollars which might have been saved. Innumerable illustrations could be afforded, did space permit. What must be desired by any one who has an appreciation of the nature of modern science, is the establishment of general principles whereby mistakes may be avoided and loss prevented. The practical man will naturally take into account the actual, concrete condition in his application of general principles. The social engineer must, in this particular, follow the practice of the mechanical engineer.

When we approach the question of public ownership versus private ownership of great industries as those connected with artificial light and transportation, our attention is attracted by the municipal corruption which exists, particularly in our own

country. The fact of this municipal corruption, and also the further fact of the very general incompetency in the management of municipal affairs, . are not called in question, and they are not under discussion. The corruption and incompetency may not everywhere be so bad as many pessimists imagine, and it may, furthermore, be true that, in both respects, we have in many cities witnessed gratifying improvement. Yet when we have made these admissions, the true state of the case is bad enough. The civic conscience with us is slow of development. The satisfactory performance of public duties implies, in some particulars, a higher civilization than we have reached. It requires some development of the imagination to see the harm and suffering brought to countless individuals by lapses in civic virtue. Furthermore, it implies a higher development of conscience than that now generally found among us, to reach that state in which there is a conscious desire to abstain from all acts which may hurt people who are not seen. Many a man will give to a poor widow, whom he sees, money to relieve her distress, but, at the same time, will not hesitate to increase the burdens of poor widows whom he does not see, by fraudulent evasion of taxation.1

The men now in our municipal councils are not the kind of men to whom we would gladly turn over vast business interests. The very

1 The slow development of social ethics is admirably described in "Democracy and Social Ethics," by Jane Addams.