sired ends are akin to those which obtain in a well organized
manufacturers' trust. The former allow only a certain number of
apprentices to learn their trade. The latter permit the establishment of
only such additional mills as shall not unduly increase the market
supply. The former fix a standard scale of wages below which no member
of the union shall work; the latter fix a minimum price for the goods
sold in the market. If there are more laborers in the union than can be
employed at the advanced rate of wages, some must be idle. If there are
more mills in the trust than the lessened demand for the goods will keep
busy, some must be shut down. The trade-union boycotts competing workmen
outside its ranks, and stigmatizes them as "scabs." The trusts endeavor
to punish every outside manufacturer, sometimes by forcing upon him such
a competition as shall cause his ruin; sometimes by means as illegal and
criminal as are the riotous acts of a mob of hungry workmen, and far
less defensible. But let us not yet bring up the question of relative
blame. The main point which must impress every candid observer is that
the means employed for the monopolies of capital and the monopolies of
labor are identical in principle and motive. Nor are we confined to
manufacturers' trusts to show that the spirit of rule or ruin
characterizes capital as well as labor. Railroad monopolies, in the
words of the president of one of the greatest corporations of the
country, "strive eagerly to protect themselves while entirely
indifferent as to what shall befall their rivals." How many weak
corporations have been deliberately ruined by the cut rates of stronger
competitors? If the laborer has "scab" in his vocabulary, has not the
railroad manager his "scalper" and "guerilla"?

The close relationship, viewed in many different aspects, of the
monopolies of labor and the monopolies in production generally has
hardly received the notice its importance deserves. Still, it is an
evidence that people are thinking of and discussing the matter when such
a writer as W. D. Howells, who is popularly supposed to cater to the
tastes of those who have very little in common with the laboring
classes, puts into the mouth of one of his characters a defence of
workingmen for executing a boycott on a non-union workingman, on the
ground that they "did only once just what the big manufacturing trusts
do every day."

Perhaps it was never so forcibly realized how thoroughl