full discretion as regards the details of manage ment, and in most cases have as great opportunities for showing their originality and for testing their powers of combination and organization as it would be possible for them to have in managing with entire independence a much smaller business.

When a number of small railroads are brought together into a large system, a number of presidents of railroads lose their positions as presidents to be sure, but most of them are retained as division superintendents, managing the same lines of road which before they managed as presidents, employing for the most part the same men, receiving as good pay, and being given almost if not quite as much discretion as before in the general management of their roads. It is true that they must report to a superior, but it must not be forgotten that as presidents of the roads they also reported to their directors, and that their work was subject to criticism even before the combination was made.

Indeed, comparatively few men in important positions at the present time are entirely without responsibility to others. The president of a railroad reports to his directors; presidents and

power

of

professors in universities, superintendents of schools, heads of practically all governmental departments, are subject to control, and more or less subject to direction. The art of managing one's superiors by tact, honesty, and excellence in serv- ice is also an art which develops individuality, perhaps to even as great an extent as the acting with entire independence, owing responsibility to none, excepting perhaps to one's creditors through the action of a court. A wise superintendent of schools, to show his power over his trustees, said to a friend some time ago that they had never refused any request that he had made. His thoughtful friend replied, "Then you have been exceedingly wise in making your requests. The wise executive officer has little difficulty with his superiors, and one cannot say that his individuality is in any way weakened by the fact that he is held responsible by those superiors.

The weakness of most employees is, that they do not attempt to think independently in their work, and that they make no effort to exercise original power in the performance of their duties. There are few positions in which independent thought (not, of course, independent action without consultation) will not count. The employer

is rare who will not trust to the fullest extent any employee who shows himself fully worthy of confidence, and who will not give him every opportunity to develop original independent power. Of course the fact is not overlooked that much work is largely routine, but the statements are not too strong when one speaks of opportunities for independent thought under the competitive system as compared with those under the combinations. Under both, the great majority are not expected to do much planning.

As the system of industrial combination develops, it seems now that there will be many of these positions to be held by subordinate superintendents, which will be equally satisfactory from the financial point of view as the headship of small establishments, and which in most cases will afford an opportunity for enterprise and independent judgment not materially less satisfactory, while, on the other hand, there will be created some positions which are far greater prizes in the industrial world than could ever be found under the former system of competition; and yet experience has not so far shown that favoritism instead of excellent work will not for a long time fill many of these places.

To those, again, who are of the opinion that the large corporations often compel their employees to engage in practices which are not in accordance with the strictest morals-for this complaint is sometimes made—it may be said that one is as seldom urged to do wrong by his employers as by the system under which he works. The pressure of competition against the individual producer not infrequently leads to misrepresentation regarding credit and to dishonorable practices in methods of manufacture and sale of goods. How many of our taxpayers deal fairly and openly by the State? The system of combination may, and does indeed in many cases, lead to wrong acts on the part of individuals. If our eyes are open, we may see that it is questionable whether the competitive system leads to fewer. There is much to be done in the way of improving our standards of business morals; and yet it is probably not too much to say that on the whole, whatever the form of our present industrial system, they are improving, in spite of the many evil practices which we see. A high standard of business character probably never before counted for so much as it does to-day.

In estimating the extent of both the economic and social effects of industrial combinations it is essential to note that their activity is limited now to only a part of the industrial field; and there seems no likelihood that they will in this era, if ever, cover it entirely. So far, at least, they have proved to be most successful, with apparently a degree of permanence, only in those industries which require much capital for successful prosecution; in which the product is uniform in its nature and the productive work of a routine character; those in which the product is bulky and there is a wide distribution of freight; or those in which other somewhat similar characteristics of a special nature, such as very expensive advertising, patents, etc., serve to encourage the combination of capital.

On the other hand, there have been few combinations, as yet, at least, in agriculture. It is true that there has been an occasional corner of wheat in some one market. In some of our larger cities there have been combinations which to a considerable extent have controlled the supply of milk in that locality. At the present time there is a large combination in the