“A trust is a combination to restrain competition among producers, formed by placing the various producing properties (mills, factories, etc.) in the hands of a board of trustees, who are empowered to direct the operations of production and sale, as if the properties were all under a single ownership and management.”[180] MONOPOLY IN PRIVATE HANDS. “A monopoly in industry may be defined as the control of some natural agent, of some line of business, or of some advantage over existing or possible competitors, by which greater profits can be secured than other competitors can make.”[181] All these definitions indicate that the private monopolies and combinations have one and the same purpose or end in view: It is to find such devices and means and to establish such organization of business activity, which will enable the organizers and managers to obtain from the people the greatest profits for the least cost, thus concentrating the people’s wealth in a few hands without paying anything to the people in return. III. On the contrary, a monopoly of the government or of municipality may be defined as a system of controlling the natural or artificial agencies of public service and utility at such a cost to the public served, which will merely cover all expenses necessary (to construct and) to keep these agencies in the best serviceable and available condition or state, thus leaving no room for the unjust concentration of the people’s wealth in any private hands. INDEX. Average: rate per cent on debt, 123, 124; average wealth of the rich, the well-to-do, the middle, and of the poor classes, 28, 29; of over 27-millions, 51, 52; average, for homes in debt, 113; for farms in debt, 111, 112; differences in averages of different authorities, 38; —rents, see: Rent. Blocks illustrating comparison of individual wealth, 50. Bread-winners by C. D. Wright, 85. Capita: per capita wealth, 27, 38; per capita debt, 122, 123. Capital: aids to increase production of wealth, 55-57; concentration of capital increased, 140, 155. Cities: per cent of the homeless in, 80; cities’ families in debt, 114, 115; large cities’ families in debt, 114, 115; cities belong to 24 and 14 per cent of their population, 118, 132. Comparison of the poor and the rich by dollars’ worth, 7, 8; comparison in tables, 42; of the family-groups, 39; of the U. S. with France at the time of Revolution, 16; with Rome, 17; by Crosby Hon. Ino. Reciprocal comparison of the middle classes of two tables, 39.