THE CONSUMMATION OF MONOPOLIES,

Hokitika Guardian, 9 August 1917, Page 4

THE CONSUMMATION OF MONOPOLIES,

(Paper read at Chamber of. Commerce by Mr W* J- Butler.)

The term “ Monopoly,” as applied to the exercise of any industrial or commercial privilege, is so associated in our minds with unfair restraint, and with the crushing of, what is too often regarded as; healthy competition, that we have been led to look upon any monopoly as a violation of those economic principles which should govern our social life. As a nation, the British have, with pliarisaical complacence, been wont to regard their conditions in respect to immunity from the depredations of i; Trusts ” hr “ Monopolies ” as yastly superior to those obtaining in, say, the United States of America: and in this Dominion wc, in our endeavor to democratize our social conditions, view with alarm the possibility of any such monster as a “ Trust ” rearing its head iu our midst. The measures that have been taken by these in authority to stamp out such intruders have been prompted by a desire to benefit the community, and have met with general approval.

While we must admit that such approval may be justified under certain conditions it is, at the same time, worth noting the fact Iliac some of the greatest “ Trusts” the world has known have matured in the Biitish Empire; an 5 , far from being such vampires as we are led to believe Them, they have in many cases been of immense benefit to the Empire. There need only be mentioned : The East India Company, the Hudson Il'ay Company, and the' Rhodesia Land Company as cases in point to bear out this assertion.

Nevertheless Monopoly” unquestionably spells restraint, and our hatred of restraint, »or our natural love of freedom, that was drawn in with our first voluntary breath, that grew with our awakeuing consciousness that wo were unattached .beings that we were separate' entities, cannot bend itself to a restraint that carries with it.no compensations. Just here it may be well to consider whether there are not r onstructive, economic qualities in monopolies that may be utilized to moie than compensate for- the restraint imposed on the unorganized individuals who may be engaged in the service or industry over which any such monopoly may seek to establish itself. It would also be well, if possibly, to analize onrprejndiee against monopolies.'

In building up our national con* stitntion, from the time when the majority of the members of the community were slaves, it lias been necessary to give the widest possible scope of liberty to all citizens. Having established as a condition of citizenship, tt ftf any citizen shall be free to engage in any lawful occupation or service for -which lie considers himself competent, the State takes upon itself the onus of protecting' such individual in the pursuit of that occupation—irrespective of the questions whether such' individual may actually be competent, or whether he may not have elected to act. in an already.over-maimed, or in an unnecessary service. It is under those conditions that we, as individuals, naturally feel that any organisation of an industry, or a service, which may have the effect of rendering us unnecessary, or unserviceable. must be of a destructive nature. It is fairly certain, lio.vever, that monopolies, or combines, are the result of a process of economic evolution; and most of the evil we attribute to them is caused by our own failure to adopt them for our benefit. Granted that in most cases they have been so evolved with the view of directing the wealth derived therefrom into a limited number of pockets. Granted also, that in many cases trusts cr monopolies exist i whose methods of gaining are | of a destructive nature—are un,-

economical, and rely wholly upon the restraint of production to enable them to extort a super,-price for their services ; yet these cases should not blind us to the fact that trusts or monopolies—that., the grouping of commercial or industrial power—are the fruits evolved by the natural trend towards the application of economic principles; and the objectionable cases are merely such fruits allowed to run wild.

With a fuller recognition of the fact that, for economic reasons, all com meres and industries must ultimately be established as public services, it will also be seen that no individual or combination should he permitted to dictate what service they shall give to the community or the price of it; much less should they be permitted to create or establish afiy unnecessary or unproductive service.

With that iuller grip of applied economics, on the part of those in whose hands the destiny of this community is placed, it would seem that, instead of legislating against trusts or combines, it would be better in the cornmupity’s interests to encourage such combines under some regulations that would be beneficial to the community with the ultimate view of

acquiring, fjncb, combines when they had .perfected themselves by monopolising the. whole o£ that line. o£ service within the Dominion. Had there been some such constructive policy in operation in this Dominion it is. probable that the recent absorption, by a control outside this Dominion, of one of our most vital services, would not have been permitted, but that such a mature service—mature almost to the point of absolute monopoly—would hav e been regulated and ultimately acquired by the State. It is most probable that State control on an economic basis can be more efficiently and cheaply established along those lines than by entering into a matnrish competition with industrial or commercial organisations that have, despite State discouragement, already advanced a considerable distance towards the point of oconomic centralisation.