MONGOL INVASIONS MONOPOLY
Gulf. Ignorance like this is partly due to the natural
tendency among men whose culture is that of western
Europe to think of history as only European history and
of European history as only the history of Latin and
Teutonic Europe. . . . It is this ignorance, of course
accentuated among those who are not scholars, which
accounts for the possibility of such comically absurd
remarks as the one not infrequently made at the time of
the Japanese-Russian War, that for the first time since
Salamis Asia had conquered Europe. As a matter of fact
the recent military supremacy of the white or European
races is a matter of only some three centuries. For the
four preceding centuries, that is, from the beginning of
the thirteenth to the seventeenth, the Mongol and
Turkish armies generally had the upper hand in any
contest with European foes, appearing in Europe always
as invaders and often as conquerors; while no ruler of
Europe of their days had to his credit such mighty feats
of arms, such wide conquests, as Genghis Khan, as
Timour the Limper, as Bajazet, Selim, and Amurath, as
Baber and Akbar. (Foreword to J. Curtin's The Mongol;
dated September 1907.) Mem. Ed. XIV, 58; Nat. Ed.
XII, 178.
MONGOL INVASIONS. See also MILITARY
SUPREMACY.
MONOPOLIES —- OBJECTION TO. The very
reason why we object to State ownership, that it puts a
stop to individual initiative and to the healthy
development of personal responsibility, is the reason
why we object to an unsupervised, unchecked
monopolistic control in private hands. Outlook , June 19,
1909, p. 394.
MONOPOLIES —- PROSECUTION OF.
Monopolies can, although in rather cumbrous fashion,
be broken up by lawsuits. Great business combinations,
however, cannot possibly be made useful instead of
noxious industrial agencies merely by lawsuits, and
especially by lawsuits supposed to be carried on for
their destruction and not for their control and
regulation. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 490; Nat. Ed. XX,
so we are called on to fight new forces, and we cannot
do it unless our hands are held up, and those who act
outside of legislative halls give us the support through
which alone we can act. (At Republican mass-meeting,
21st Assembly Dist., New York, Octobe r 28, 1882.)
Mem. Ed. XVI, 16; Nat. Ed. XIV, 14.
MONOPOLY. All business into which the element of
monopoly in any way or degree enters, and where it
proves in practice impossible totally to eliminate this
element of monopoly, should be carefully supervised,
regulated, and controlled by governmental authority;
and such control should be exercised by administrative,
rather than by judicial, officers. . . . Where regulation
by competition (which is, of course, preferable) proves
insufficient, we should not shrink from bringing
governmental regulation to the point of control of
monopoly prices if it should ever become necessary to
do so, just as in exceptional cases railway rates are now
regulated.
In emphasizing the part of the administrative
department in regulating combinations and checking
absolute monopoly, I do not, of course, overlook the
obvious fact that the legislature and the judiciary must
do their part. The legislature should make it clear
exactly what methods are illegal, and then the judiciary
will be in a better position to punish adequately and
relentlessly those who insist on defying the clear
legislative decrees.
I do not believe any absolute private monopoly is
justified, but if our great combinations are properly
supervised, so that immoral practices are prevented,
absolute monopoly will not come to pass, as the laws of
competition and efficiency are against it. (Before Ohio
Constitutional Convention, Columbus, February 21,
1912.) Mem. Ed. XIX, 174; Nat. Ed. XVII, 129.
____________. The true way of dealing with monopoly
is to prevent it by administrative action before it grows
so powerful that even when courts condemn it they
shrink from destroying it. (1913.) Mem. Ed. XXII, 492;
Nat. Ed. XX, 423.
MONOPOLY—-LEGALIZATION OF. Our
opponents have said that we intend to legalize
monopoly. Nonsense. They have legalized monopoly.
At this moment the Standard Oil and Tobacco Trust
monopolies are legalized; they are being carried on
under the decree of the Supreme Court. Our proposal is
really to break up monopoly. Our proposal is to lay
down certain requirements, and then require the
commerce commission—-the industrial commission
422.
MONOPOLIES IN NEW YORK. There is an issue in
this State of great importance, and they who defend it
have to some extent brought it into disrepute, that is
anti-monopoly. But nevertheless there is no question
that there is a vital spirit underlying it; that we as a
people are suffering from new dangers; that as our
fathers fought with slavery and crushed it, in order that
it would not seize and crush them,
[348]