The Southern states of the Union, though they have much less immigration than the North or West, have a population problem that is even more difficult in some respects—that of the negro. Many immigrant elements are readily “amalgamated” or assimilated into the native local population—by marriage, by trade, and indeed even by physical environment. It seems certain, for instance, that the physical type of the children of Italian or Hebrew immigrants in New York City is different from that of their parents and more like a local type, even in such respects as the shape and contour of the head and its ratio of length to breadth. But the negro does not assimilate physically or, to any considerable degree, mentally; and the communities in America in which he is most plentiful are so far from eager to assimilate him that they socially and politically isolate him. The reader should go to the article Negro (Vol. 19, p. 344), in which there is a general study of the race by T. Athol Joyce, assistant in the Department of Ethnography, British Museum, and a section on Negroes in the United States by Dr. Walter Francis Willcox, late chief statistician U. S. Census Bureau and professor of social science and statistics, Cornell University. The magnitude of the negro problem may be deduced from Professor Willcox’s remark that the present number of negroes in the United States “is greater than the total population of the United States was in 1820, and nearly as great as the population of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.” Birth and mortality statistics in regard to negroes show that they are increasing much less rapidly than whites; but it must be remembered that there is an absolute increase, that there is no prospect of the negro problem being solved by the dying out of the race, and that even the fact that negroes constitute a smaller proportion of the population than formerly does not greatly affect the problem. There is also much relevant information of value in the articles on the Southern states, particularly in the sections on population, education and government; and as to education see the articles Tuskegee (Vol. 27, p. 487), Booker T. Washington (Vol. 28, p. 344) and S. C. Armstrong (Vol. 2, p. 591). See also the article Lynch Law (Vol. 17, p. 169) by Prof. W. L. Fleming of the Louisiana State University.
Trusts
There is a very close relation between the economic problems connected with labour and those which have to do with capital and especially with capital in its organized and monopolistic forms. A monopoly of the supply, sale, or manufacture of any class of goods was, especially in England under the Tudors and Stuarts, a crown grant; and the theory of patent and copyright law is based on such grants, as is shown in the articles Monopoly (Vol. 18, p. 733), Letters Patent (Vol. 16, p. 501), and Patents (Vol. 20, p. 903). On the modern monopoly which, far from being cherished by government, is constantly being regulated, checked or “crushed,” see the article Trusts (Vol. 22, p. 334) by Prof. J. W. Jenks, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, whose treatment is from the American point of view—the problem is peculiarly an American one—but with sections on European experience, including paragraphs on Great Britain, Germany, France and Austria.
Among the questions answered by this article—questions that are continually presenting themselves to the mind of every intelligent citizen, but that are seldom lucidly answered even by the most intelligent—are:
What are trusts? Why are they formed?
Why were they not formed before the latter years of the 19th century?
Why can combination be successfully applied in some industries and not in others? Why do some industries thrive better under competition than under combination? Why are some combinations bound to fail?
In what respect has the trust advantages over the individual competitor?
How do trusts benefit by protective tariffs and by discrimination in rates of transportation?
What has been the history of trusts in Europe?