Until the last few years the economist has rather dogmatically assumed that the modern movement toward combination characterizes only those forms of enterprise which necessitate the employment of large amounts of fixed capital-notably, public service corporations, such as railroads, and certain manufacturing industries which have reached an advanced stage of technological development. The farmer, both because of his situation and because of certain peculiarly distinctive features of agriculture, has usually been conceived of as a permanently isolated producer. Yet the farmer is not altogether unfamiliar with proposals to combine, nor has he always turned a deaf ear to the pooling schemes that have been evolved for his benefit. However, the difficulties connected with unified action are many and obvious, and in general they have proved insurmountable. In the first place, agriculture is notably a non-capitalistic pursuit. Only a limited amount of capital can be invested upon a given land area, while there is need of a relatively large expenditure of manual labor, or at any rate, of personal supervision on the part of the cultivator. There is nowhere subordination of the producer to the system under which he works, as is so often the case under the capitalistic methods of modern machine industry. The farmer's occupation is, in short, admirably fitted to develop independence of action and impatience of all forms of restraint. Furthermore, his mode of life conduces to the fostering of a strong individualism. Living more or less segregated from his fellows, it is difficult for him to realize that his pecuniary success is to a very appreciable extent bound up with theirs. In fact; it is doubtful if a purely intellectual realization of a community of interests could ever be sufficiently potent to bring the farmers of the country to combine forces. It needs the addition of a certain spiritual element to bring about an effective organization, such as the sentiment of a common hatred.

Even superficial studies of the business career of John Jacob Astor emphasize its supposedly dualistic nature, and distinguish between the apparently sharply defined aspects of fortune-getting for which it stands. In fact, Astor's trading operations are frequently discussed as if they had not the slightest theoretical connection with his activities as an investor in land. It is the latter method of fortune-getting which is generally considered to afford exclusive opportunity for the appearance of an "unearned increment" (that is, gain of some sort, which cannot be attributed to the personal effort or personal ability of the beneficiary). Under the influence of this misconception, an attempt is made to distinguish between the profits arising from trade and the gains growing out of land investments on the ground that, in the one case, the size of the returns is conditioned by the degree of personal activity, whereas, in the other case, no appreciable amount of individual effort or ability is involved. Daniel Webster, for instance, in an address to the jury, when arguing against Astor's claim to lands in Putnam County, implied some such distinction between commercial exertions and land investments, in connection with the moral judgment that he passed upon Astor. True, his argument was impassioned and polemical in tone. Moreover, he was referring to a particular case of land investment characterized by certaini peculiar features. But the antithesis that he suggests is nevertheless significant-the more so, that it was designed to appeal to popular prejudices. His plea was that Astor had obtained possession of the land in dispute, not as he did that vast wealth than which no one envies him less than I do -not by fair and honest exertions in commercial enterprise, but by speculation, by purchasing up the forlorn hope of the heirs of a family driven from this country by a bill of attainder.'

The rapid expansion of trade and industry during the years immediately,succeeding the Civil War was accomp,anied by an excessive competition which led to the elimination of large numbers of producers within various lines of activity. In consequence, sporadic,attempts were made to relieve the pressure of this competition by means of pooling agreements. As early as I872, for example, certain distillers, north of the Ohio (many of whom) had goine into, business, to, reap the speculative profits of changes in the excise) combined in an unsuccessful effort to restrict their output.' The same year, moreover, witnessed a combination am.ong six coal roads which by this time had secured a sufficient interest in, the anthracite fields to, be able to enter into, an. agreement toi regulate production and fix transportation rates.2 Shortly after the close of the war the sugar-refining industry also began to suffer from an aggravated case of competition. During the period from I875 to i88o the number of refineries