Democratick Editorials

Part Five

~ PART FIVE~ The Principles of Free Trade MONOPOLIES: I The Times has favoured us with a confession of faith on the subject of monopolies, and if its preaching were in accordance with its creed, there would be little ground of dispute, for it would seem by this that there is no great difference between us on general principles. The Times says: "The Post is against all monopolies-so are we. The Post is for Equal Rights-so are we. The Post is for the suppression of small notes, and a reform of our banking system-so are we, for the last because it is needed, and for the first because the notes are an evil, and their extinction is essential to the success of one of our most important measures of public policy, the substitution of a specie currency. The Post is against legislating for the benefit of individuals, to the disadvantage or exclusion of others-so are we, and in this and on all these points, the party agrees with us." So far, so good. We shall pass by the twaddle about "the party agreeing with us," which is mere harmless impertinence and coxcombry not worth reply. We shall pass by, too, the satisfactory and lucid reason stated by the Times for being in favour of "a reform of our banking system." We gather, then, from this confession of faith that the Times is opposed to all monopolies, is in favour of equal rights, believes that small bank-notes should be suppressed, the banking system reformed , and legislation for individuals, to the disadvantage or exclusion of others, should cease. One might naturally infer from all this that there is no real ground of controversy between us, and that, like many other disputants, we have been Evening Post, November 20, 1834. Title added by Sedgwick; Roman numeral added. 277 278 DEMOCRATICK EDITORIALS arguing about nothing. But when the Times comes to explain itself, we find, notwithstanding the apparent agreement in our premises, that we differ very widely in our conclusions. It is against all monopolies in the abstract, but for them in the concrete. It is opposed to charters of incorporation in general, but advocates them in particular. It is in short against exclusive privileges as monopolies, but in favour of them as means of effecting "great objects of public utility," "developing vast resources," "stimulating industry," and so forth, which is only a repetition of the stale cant which has been used, time out of mind, by those who desired to cheat the people out of their rights for their own selfish ends. The Times is pleased to say that we ride the doctrine of monopolies as a hobby. We might retort by saying that the Times rides it only for convenience, and just as it suits its purposes. It is "ride and tie" with it. One moment it is on horseback, pricking its ambling steed along; the next it dismounts and turns him loose to graze on the common. For ourselves, we have only to say, that if opposition to monopolies , in every form and under every disguise, is our hobby, it is because we honestly believe them to be the most sly and dangerous enemies to the general prosperity that ever were devised by ingenious cupidity. It is on this ground we have opposed them earnestly-it is on this ground we mean to oppose them, with all our ability, until the evil is arrested, or we become convinced that opposition is vain. Though the Times professes to agree with us in the opinion that all monopolies are infringements upon the equal rights of the people, and therefore at war with the spirit of our government and institutions, it differs widely with us in its definition . It separates monopolies from corporations, and its idea seems to be that monopolies must be entirely exclusive, or they are not monopolies. There are degrees of virtue and of vice; there are degrees in every thing; but according to the Times there are none in the nature and extent of monopolies. These consist in extremes, and have no medium. MONOPOLIES: I 279 Among its exceptions are railroad incorporations, which it does not consider as belonging to the great family of monopolies . It acknowledges that a railroad may be a monopoly- "a speculation for the profit of individuals, not required by, nor likely to promote the public interest;" but, on the...