(3) A third method of “fleecing” investors lies in skillful manipulation of the stock market.  In ways which are known to the initiated, it is often possible artificially to raise or lower the market value of stocks.  Unwary investors are lured in; timid investors are frightened out; through all ticker fluctuations the brokers win their commissions; the skilled financiers and organizers of combinations rake in unearned sums that are sometimes immense, while the losses fall mostly to the lot of the are honestly seeking to put their savings into solid investments.  The ethics of the stock market has not yet been clearly decided, and the subject is too big to discuss here.  It is mentioned only to point out one more form of social sinning, as yet inadequately punished or rebuked, whereby men of capital and brains have been able to pocket money for which they have given no return to society. [Footnote:  For cases, see C. Norman Fay, Big Business and Government.  Outlook, vol. 91, pp. 591, 636.]

III.  To competitors?

(1) The most conspicuous form of wrongdoing, perhaps, to be charged to modern business is the attempt to get monopoly by foul means.  The story of too many of our great trusts is a story of competitors ruined by ruthless and unscrupulous methods.  The competitor may be hurt by the circulation of falsehoods concerning his business, his right to patents, or the worth of his goods.  He may be denied outlet to markets by control of the railway upon which he must depend.  If the capital of the concern that is seeking monopoly permits, the price of the article manufactured may be lowered until rivals with less financial backing are forced out of business-after which the price can be raised and losses recouped.  With skill and foresight worthy of a better cause, some of the great industrial leaders of our day have eliminated one rival after another and attained that unification of a business which has, indeed, its great economic advantages, but is not to be won at such a bitter cost. [Footnote:  See, for example, I. Tarbell, History of the Standard Oil Company.]

(2) Even where monopoly is not sought, there are many unfair methods of competition-unfair to competitors and to the public that both should serve.  One method, much discussed in recent years, is that of railway rebates.  By this is meant favoritism in freight rates between shippers and between localities.  One manufacturer, who is in a position to ship his goods by either of two railways, perhaps by a water route, is given a low rate to get his freight; another manufacturer of similar goods, not so favorably situated, is made to pay a higher rate.  Rates from seaboard or river cities, where water competition exists, have often been considerably lower than rates from inland towns on the same line, with a very much shorter haul.  In such ways the railway squeezes those whom it can squeeze and is content with a bare profit where it can do no better.  Where the railway is controlled