That the trusts avail themselves of all possible economies in production has often been urged in their defense. Certainly such economies are not needed to secure a monopoly in possession, nor does it seem that the greatest incentives to their adoption are present. The sacrifice of inventions rather than their use by these great monopolies is proof that they do much to prevent such economies. A monopoly can be induced to accept only with difficulty improved devices which under the spur of competition it would gladly avail itself of. Thus in the Post-Office, which is a monopoly, though a Government monopoly, improvements are introduced only with the greatest difficulty. If combination can of itself effect monopoly, why are huge sums set aside by these great corporations to influence legislation? Why are contributions made to the campaign funds of the two great parties? Is it not because these combinations seek to perpetuate their monopolistic privileges? It may be said that it is contributed to effect the defeat of “strike bills.” But what would a business partnership, not in some way dependent upon previously existing legislation, care about “strike bills”? Why does the American Sugar Refining Company (according to the testimony of Mr. Havemeyer) contribute in some states to the Republican campaign fund, and in other states to the Democratic campaign fund? As an example of the kind of defense urged by the trust apologists here is a work entitled, “The Trust; Its Book,” containing articles from the pens of Charles R. Flint, James J. Hill, S. C. T. Dodd, Francis B. Thurber, and others. It is a plea of “confession and avoidance.” The authors fight shy of even the hated term monopoly, and content themselves with defending the right of combination. Not one of them appears to think that the popular outcry against trusts is founded on anything but utter ignorance; and they therefore devote themselves to showing the advantages of large scale production—as if that were the question. All this seems purely disingenuous. It is hardly conceivable that men who know so well the effects of monopoly, who know how potent has been the use by combination of existing laws securing the possession of special privileges, should write this way from any other motive than to becloud the issue. We can acquit them of intentional deception far less readily than the professors of political economy. The latter may be at once exonerated, since it is incredible that men who have become involved in the self-created subtleties of modern economics should retain sufficient clearness of comprehension to see anything in its proper relation. If it be true that there are no monopolies save law-created monopolies, it only remains for the state to undo the work it has done. The means by which the state, consciously or unconsciously, has fostered monopolies may be removed, and a new, and up to this time untried, method for remedying the evils of trusts be set in motion.