Page images
PDF
EPUB

insist upon the rights of every man, or of every company, to enjoy free competition, under equitable regulation that would preclude the enjoyment of special privileges.

Free competition implies the right of labor or of capital to enter any occupation or branch of business without barriers against equal opportunity.

This right implies equal opportunity for a man to exercise to the full his skill, judgment, and experience.

Men vary in industrial ability, and always have so varied.

Hence, free competition will inevitably result in the increasing accumulation of capital by the thrifty, and in the enlarging volume of business by the most efficient.

Inequality of business operations is the inevitable consequence of the world's increase of wealth and the varying endowments of human beings, where free competition exists.

In perfectly legitimate
industry, bigness will
result from equality
of treatment. That

truth is based on
the industrial expe-
rience of the race.
In a big country
of big wealth, big-
ness of industry
is a matter
of course.
Without
doubt, all
will admit
this con-
clusion.

But,

neverthe

less, it
will be

said that
if we be-
lieve in free
competition,

we cannot believe in It is said that there

ence between restraint of competition and restraint of trade. Give every one free choice, equal opportunity, and abolish special privileges, and there ought to be no restraint of trade, it is said. Is that true?

Perhaps we might as well face the fact that free opportunity for skill and superiority inevitably carries with it

more or less of the advantages of monopoly. Among working. men, for instance, the highly skilled man is, by virtue of his skill, protected from the competition of the less skilled; and he occupies a position of natural monopoly.

[graphic]

Skill is only another way of spelling monopoly. What is the nub

of the whole matter? It becomes plain that society, while willing to allow bigness and to en

courage efficiency, must insist that the conqueror in the struggle shall not use his power and superiority to the detriment of society. For instance, if a shipping business has grown up from small beginnings until it does 85 per cent. of the trade, and if other smaller competitors arise who, attracted by the success of the one large company, have lowered the share of trade of the big competitor to 60 per cent., is it morally wrong for the large organization to lower the price of the finished product to the consumer, and thus regain its old predominance in the industry? If the lower price is maintained and not used merely as a temporary device to oust competitors-society is the gainer by the

results of the struggle between competitors. Obviously, it is the duty of society to try to retain such results of superior efficiency as these. And this efficiency may still be obtained when production goes on on a large scale.

But

Bigness may be a mark of efficiency. We often confuse bigness and monopoly. As already said, superiority inevitably brings with it a natural monopoly. what lies vaguely in the common mind is probably a dislike of artificial monopoly; that is, an antagonism to bigness not due to economic superiority or efficiency, but to some special favors, or to the possession of unfair advantages. This is probably the crux of the whole matter. The widespread feeling of hostility to trusts is doubtless traceable to opposition to bigness that is based on artificial monopolies.

Consequently, any laws that grant special favors to any one class are against the interests of society, and should not be allowed to create a monopoly.

In short, we come face to face with the fact that large business is not in itself inimical to society; but, in truth, that it is essential to progress.

Also, that large production based on a natural monopoly is a gain to society.

That is, we have here the vexed question of distinguishing between "good" and "bad" trusts.

This distinction is one that we cannot blink. It is against all common sense to attack everything that is large, or even a thing that is large if based on the natural monopoly of superior efficiency.

The fundamental test of "badness" or "goodness" must certainly be whether the trust is an artificial monopoly, or not. Remove special privileges and the test is easily made.

Now, if we were clear-headed enough to make this distinction, we should be able to avoid the action by the Government that cuts so deeply into the feeling of self-respect held by many honorable, upright men who have succeeded in building up a large business by legitimate means through their industrial superiority over rivals.

as criminals because they have only been superior in efficiency over their competitors. If their success has won them a natural monopoly, why should they not retain it?

Under free competition and fair play, just as soon as this ceases to be a monopoly due to superiority, then their supremacy ends; and another competitor whose industrial superiority is greater assumes the lead.

Finally, what is the practical remedy? First-A law that can be understood as clearly as the law against theft or arson. Let the offense against society be stated plainly enough to be understood, or not stated at all. Blundering on a national scale is no fun for the producer, or for the men thrown out of employment by reason of uncertainty as to what the law means. Have no mercy on wrongdoing, injustice, or industrial tyranny, but be intelligent in defining what is meant by those terms.

Second-Create publicity, so far as possible. To be sure, private business cannot be treated in the same way as quasi-public agencies like railways. But it may be the price of bigness that it should prove its legitimacy and show its service to society by such publicity of accounts and costs as would free it from attack and save it from the possibility of any charge that it was using its power to reap where it has not

sown.

Third-If only general principles of law can yet be laid down regarding an evolution. of business organization that has not been fully understood, then give up stupid attempts at abolition and destruction, and establish regulation through some advisory or executive board of trade. If composed of men of high character, ability, courage, and experience-after the fashion of the English Board of Trade such a commission could be trusted to decide whether any business was based on an artificial monopoly and was opposed to the general good of society; and it could recommend the abolition of specific privileges on which monopoly was based. Then honorable business success need not be stung by a criminal prosecution. Reserve such prosecution for the artificial monopolies and for those who have

Such men rightly object to being regarded gained wealth by unfair means.

[graphic]

M

EXICO is to-day in a condition of chronic revolt.
The revolution that drove Diaz from power was
but the beginning of a reign of terror, which had
been freely predicted, and which now, ten weeks
after Madero's election to the presi-

dency, has bloomed into a bloody cataclysm.
There are more men under arms in Mexico
to-day than there were during the revolu-
tion. Foreigners are fleeing as they did not
while Diaz was still there. Spaniards and Ger-
mans, Frenchmen and Englishmen are constantly
insulted and frequently killed. Americans by the
hundreds are leaving, while many have been killed.
From the beginning of the revolution, November
18, 1910, to date, December 12, 1911, seventy-

drove Diaz from power was but the beginning of a reign of terror

*

seven Americans are known to have been killed, three as recently as November 15.* Marauding bands of revolutionists (socalled) overrun the country, especially the south and west. Bandits, who vary in number from groups of half a dozen to armies of several thousand, are loose and devastating. Federals, who go out to attack these turbulent elements, sometimes join with them and sometimes, themselves, become looters and assassins.

Some of the atrocities committed are too horrible to describe in print, and the mildest form of murder, execution by shooting, is performed with no pretense at formal trial. The grosser forms of murder and assault are of frequent enough and of recent enough occurrence to justify the statement that Madero has utterly failed to pacify his distressed country.

The diary of events from the day on which Diaz resigned, May 25, 1911, to the day on which this is written, December 12, 1911 (which is printed on pages 1594-1595) must be studied carefully before a detailed description is given of a few of the salient and significant facts of the revolt.

So

This diary is made from accounts published in Mexican newspapers, printed in Spanish, with the exception of the Mexican Herald, which is printed in English. that it may not be thought that I have chosen anti-administration papers, it must be stated here that all my printed sources of information are professedly in favor of Madero, and that their record of events is more likely to err on the side of suppression than of exaggeration.

Such news, save in the most diluted form, does not get through to the United States. This country has taken it for granted that the election of Madero settled the Mexican problem for some time to come; and when, as has occasionally happened, accounts of killings have appeared, it has been said, in explanation, either that they were exaggerated or that it was only natural to expect a few isolated cases of lawlessness, immediately following the removal of a despotism so long and so patiently endured.

However, they are not isolated cases, nor is the Mexican problem settled. The "cases" are massacres, the "incidents" battles.

During the interregnum-from May 25, when Diaz resigned, to October 1, when *December 19. Frank Gillette, sugar planter, born Cleveland, Ohio, killed by bandits at Mazatlan, Sinaloa. Wife outraged.

Madero was elected-there may have been some apparent excuse for the upheaval, although De la Barra was said to be a fairly competent executive and Madero was actually, if not nominally in power. However, during those ten weeks, there were at least two battles of considerable size; one, on July 13, when 377 rebels were killed, with no account of the federal dead, and one from September 24 to 27, when upward of 500 were killed and thrown into the Grijalva River.

Still, it is more important to consider the ten weeks that have elapsed since Madero became president in name, as he has been in fact ever since Diaz resigned. On the very day of his election, October 1, there was a battle at San Juan del Rio, in the state of Morelos, in which forty were killed. During the week following, there was desperate fighting, among small and roving bands, throughout the states of Morelos, Oaxaca, and Guerrero, with no definite account of the killed or wounded.

On October 6, in the city of Chicuazan in the state of Chiapas, correspondents of reputable papers were present and recorded that sixty-five were killed and scores wounded. On the following day, the federals and the Chamula Indians fought until 200 were killed and wounded. Three days later, in a fight at Chiapa de Corzo, thirty were killed and forty wounded. The next day, the city of Jonacatepec was besieged by 1,500 bandits, and no record has ever been obtained of the atrocities committed or of the lives lost. On such an occasion, every one flees in terror, newspaper correspondents with the rest, and for days, and often for weeks, no one revisits the scene.

On October 28 there was fighting in practically every state in Mexico. The only state in which I find no record of fighting is Jalisco. On this day, in the state of Sonora, which had been quiet for several months, perhaps because it lies contiguous to the southern border of the United States, 138 are known to have been killed.

On November 1, a battle lasted for five hours on the streets of Torreon; casualties unreported, presumed to be in the hundreds. Two days later, a hundred rebels were killed in Juchitan, and the papers, with the evident hope of allaying prejudice in the City of Mexico, gave no account of the federals lost.

On November 5, the day before Madero

was sworn in as president, a new revolution was launched in favor of Chè Gomez, and another hundred rebels were reported killed in Juchitan.

Inauguration day, the hordes of Zapata were loose, committing atrocities all through the state of Morelos and in parts of Oaxaca and Guerrero. The day afterward, an eye-witness, corroborated by numerous others, states that a thousand corpses littered the streets of Juchitan. Many of them were stacked up into barriers behind which the rebel followers of Chè Gomez fought. The next day, in a battle at Morelia, only twenty-five were killed. The count was accurate there, for the corpses had not been hurled together in piles.

By the middle of November, six weeks after Madero was elected, and a week after he had been inaugurated, the revolt ex

Carting away the dead after a

tended over the entire Republic. There were uprisings in every state. The situation in Mexico was worse than it had been at any time since Diaz first assumed power, thirty-seven years before.

On the fifteenth of November, there were at least seven battles in the states of Sonora and Morelos. Among the for- . eigners killed were three Americans who had taken no part in the fighting, who had been employed for some time in peaceable pursuits. On that day, the Yaqui Indians took the war-path. On that day also, there was a panic in Torreon, and 8,000 workmen went on strike, while great numbers of foreigners started hurriedly for the United States.

On the twentysecond, forty were killed in a battle at Canada de Caracheo

rebel raid. One of the common ico to-day

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »