The Conflict between Private Monopoly and Good Citizenship — Key Ideas to Explore

(0 User reviews) 1382

In Category - Historical Psychological Social Fiction

Authors: Brooks, John Graham, 1846-1938 Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2009 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Business ethics; Monopolies -- United States; United States -- Economic conditions Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 8,363

Reading time 37 min

Text sections 1

The Conflict between Private Monopoly and Good Citizenship — Key Ideas to Explore can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 8,363 words, 37 min estimated reading time, and 1 detected text section.

The text analysis averages about 24.5 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Business ethics,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #30375

Brooks examines how foreign critics' observations of American lawlessness and the tension between private monopoly and democratic citizenship inform a moral critique of unchecked economic power.

Editorial Edition Score 4.4/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg30375

Read the Text

The Weinstock Lectures on The Morals of Trade

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIVATE MONOPOLY AND GOOD CITIZENSHIP. By JOHN GRAHAM BROOKS.

COMMERCIALISM AND JOURNALISM. By HAMILTON HOLT.

THE BUSINESS CAREER IN ITS PUBLIC RELATIONS. By ALBERT SHAW.

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIVATE MONOPOLY AND GOOD CITIZENSHIP

PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMERS' LEAGUE AUTHOR OF "THE SOCIAL UNREST," "AS OTHERS SEE US," ETC.

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

The Riverside Press Cambridge

_Published December 1909_

BARBARA WEINSTOCK LECTURES ON THE MORALS OF TRADE

This series will contain essays by representative scholars and men of affairs dealing with the various phases of the moral law in its bearing on business life under the new economic order, first delivered at the University of California on the Weinstock foundation.

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PRIVATE MONOPOLY AND GOOD CITIZENSHIP

For a special purpose, I have had occasion to examine with care the comments upon American life and institutions made by foreign critics during the period that extends from the later part of the eighteenth century up to the present time. If one puts aside the frivolous and ill-tempered studies and considers alone the fairer and more competent observers, the least pleasant of all the criticisms is that we are essentially a lawless people.

If the critic, like de Tocqueville and Miss Martineau, had sympathy and admiration for us, the revealed lawlessness came as an astonishment, because it seemed to upset all sorts of pretty theories about democracy. The doctrinaires had worked out to perfection the idea that a people who could freely make and unmake their own laws would, for that plain reason, respect the laws. Of course, a people who had laws thrust upon them from above would hate them and disobey them. But a democracy would escape this temptation.

It was apparently an amusement of many of these writers to collect, as did the jaunty author of "Peter Simple" in his Diary, interminable pages from our own press to illustrate the general contempt for those laws which really interfered with pleasures or economic interests. Harriet Martineau drove through Boston on the day when Garrison was being dragged through the streets. The flame of her indignation burned high; but it burned with new heat when she found that the very best of Boston culture and respectability would not lift a finger or pay a copper to have the law enforced in Mr. Garrison's favor. Beacon Street and Harvard professors told her that the victim was a disreputable agitator, richly deserving what he got. They seemed to think this English lady very cranky and unreasonable. The mob had the entire sympathy of the best people in the community, and that should satisfy her. De Tocqueville had an awakening at a polling-booth in Pennsylvania that in the same way disturbed all his presuppositions about us.

It is not my purpose to bristle up and strike back at these critics of American behavior. Amid possible exaggeration, they are telling a great deal of truth about us. It is a truth that it has its own natural history. A long adventurous border-life was in some respects the great fact of the nineteenth century in moulding our national habits. A large part of the population lived under conditions where no appeal to legal restraints was possible. There were no courts,--no police. The whole constructive work of life was thrown so absolutely upon the man fighting his life-battle alone, that excessive individualistic habits were formed. Every self-reliant instinct was developed until it became a law unto itself. They do not, says de Tocqueville of the Americans, ask help. They do not "appeal." They understand that everything rests with themselves. Every immigrant of those days had come from what Freeman calls "overgoverned" countries. They escaped from highly organized social constraints to have their fling on a continent as illimitable in extent as it was in the prizes which its natural resources offered. That such a large proportion of the strong lived this free border-life through the entire century has resulted in making a standard of individualistic action almost dominant in the community.

Continue Reading →

John Graham Brooks opens his lecture by examining a persistent charge from foreign observers: that Americans are fundamentally lawless. He notes that sympathetic critics like de Tocqueville and Harriet Martineau were astonished by this lawlessness, as it contradicted democratic theory that a self-governing people would respect laws they freely made. Brooks uses Martineau's account of the Boston mob dragging William Lloyd Garrison through the streets, and the refusal of respectable Bostonians to enforce the law, to illustrate how economic interests and social pressure can override legal principles.

The Vocabulary of Moral Judgment

Brooks's diction consistently frames monopoly as a moral failing rather than a purely economic one. He speaks of “gigantic abuses,” “fantastic extremes of wealth,” and “snobbish and materialistic ideals.” The word “evil” appears repeatedly: monopoly evils, evils put into phrases. This moral vocabulary is deliberate; Brooks is delivering a lecture on “the morals of trade,” and his word choices reinforce that the conflict is not merely regulatory but ethical. He contrasts “sane and disinterested men” with those who would shirk responsibility, implying that indifference to monopoly is a form of moral cowardice.

The Rhetoric of Urgency and Duty

Brooks builds a sense of immediate obligation through imperative constructions and temporal markers. He writes that “we are as a fact now committed to regulation—committed to a long and hard struggle.” The repetition of “now” and “at last” creates a tone of crisis: proposals have “at last been put before us with coherence,” and their decision “now waits upon the choice of the people.” He uses the phrase “first clear duty” to describe regulating transportation, and he calls President Roosevelt’s service “a service that should command” support. This rhetoric transforms policy analysis into a call for civic action.

The Structure of Contrast and Distinction

Brooks organizes his argument through sharp contrasts. He distinguishes between “the greedy abuses of capitalism through organized privilege” and “the possible uses of capitalism under regulation.” He separates the socialist demand for universal ownership from the regulatory approach that “does not ask for all forests, all mines, or all the water-power.” This structuring device allows him to position his own proposal as moderate and practical. He also contrasts past recklessness—giving away franchise grants and parting with natural resources—with a future of “ordered and constructive purpose.” The repeated use of “but” and “yet” signals these pivots.

The Use of Historical and Anecdotal Evidence

Brooks grounds his argument in specific historical examples. He cites foreign critics from the late eighteenth century to the present, naming de Tocqueville and Martineau. The anecdote about Martineau driving through Boston on the day of Garrison’s mobbing is the most vivid; Brooks uses it to show that lawlessness is not merely a popular failing but a failure of elites: “Beacon Street and Harvard professors told her that the victim was a disreputable agitator.” This example serves as evidence for his claim that economic interests corrupt legal respect. He also references President Roosevelt’s messages as a concrete policy anchor, avoiding abstraction.

Brooks’s lecture is best read as a moral argument dressed in economic language. Pay attention to how he uses the word “lawless” not as a description of criminality but as a diagnosis of civic failure. His recurring contrast between “the few” and “the entire people” reveals the democratic stakes of monopoly regulation. The excerpts do not show Brooks’s full policy proposals, but they do reveal a writer who believes that clear, forceful language can itself be a form of political action.

Reading about unchecked monopoly, I remembered my grandfather’s quiet fury at a railroad baron who swallowed our town’s mills. He never explained, just stared out the window. Years later, a passage in Lincoln's Birthday — Inside the Classic captured that same ache—the way great power forgets the faces it displaces, the slow erosion of neighborly trust. That book felt like sitting with an old friend who finally voices your unspoken grief.