WENDELL
BERGE: TRUST BUSTER, WASHINGTON D.C. 1903-1955
Eulogy from
the Christian Register, November 1955
Former
Assistant Attorney General and head of the Justice Department's
Antitrust division, Wendell Berge died in Washington of
a heart ailment on September 25. He was chairman of the
board of trustees of the All Souls' Unitarian Church,
Washington. At the May Meetings of the American Unitarian
Association this year, Mr. Berge addressed the Laymen's
League on the subject: "Competition and Business
Ethics."
The Washington Post in an editorial, said: "The death
of Wendell Berge takes from Washington one of its most
public-spirited lawyers and a man who made a notable record
in antitrust enforcement. As a private citizen, Mr. Berge
took an active part in many community activities and especially
in the work of the All Souls' Unitarian Church, where
he was chairman of the board of trustees."
Mr. Berge was a native of Lincoln. Nebraska, from an active
Democratic family (his father, who had Populist "leanings,"
was narrowly defeated while running for governor in 1904).
He took his undergraduate diploma at the University of
Nebraska and his Bachelor of Law from the University of
Michigan.
After a brief period of practice in New York City, he
went to Washington in 1930 at the invitation of John Lord
O'Brian, prominent antitrust lawyer, then head of that
division under Herbert Hoover. In 1941, President Roosevelt
named Berge Assistant Attorney General, in charge of the
criminal division of the Justice Department. In 1947 he
returned to private practice in Washington.
Mr. Berge consistently argued that monopoly would ruin
free enterprise. and that competition must be preserved.
He wrote Cartels: Challenge to a Free World and
Economic Freedom for the West.
MONOPOLY—THREAT
TO AMERCIAN DEMOCRACY
A crucial
challenge to free enterprise and to our democratic institutions
confronts us.
At the very beginning of its history the United States sought
to resolve the most difficult of all political problems
in human society—the establishment of an enduring political
democracy. The basic principles upon which the political
structure of American life is founded may not be perfect
in the ideal sense. But, within the conditions and limitations
of human existence, American political democracy has not
only withstood the test of time; it still represents the
freest and most progressive system of government by which
men have sought to make justice the aim of law, and law
the instrument of liberty.
Americans in this century have witnessed more than one attempt
to challenge these political premises. Dictatorship and
absolutism have repeatedly sought to overthrow governments
resting on the common consent of the governed, and to substitute
the force of irresponsible power for the law. Perhaps the
greatest tribute that can be paid to political democracy
is that it has withstood the assaults of aggressors, and
in doing so has made it possible for the American people
as well as millions throughout the world to hope that the
future will still have regard for the dignity of man and
that an enduring peace may be attained.
Economic democracy is basic
Both democracy and peace, however, must have a firm economic
basis. Moreover, economic development must keep pace with
the needs of democracy in an era of rapid social and technical
transition. It is at this point that there is an increasing
concern that tendencies have arisen in the economic development
of American society, which, if they become dominant, will
imperil the health of democracy. The depression of the thirties,
which had worldwide consequences for democracy, crystallized
the danger of some of these tendencies.
We have come to understand that unless political democracy
so nourished and supported by a prosperous economic democracy
in which opportunity for individual enterprise is constantly
renewed, the whole structure of a free society is threatened.
In other words, continuous or repeated economic crisis is
a challenge to freedom no less deadly in the long run than
was the mailed fist of dictatorship. It is for this reason
that monopoly in the nation's industry is a menace with
which American society must cope or find one day that its
democratic institutions no longer prevail.
During the years in which the American economy was growing
up, discovering its resources, building railroads, constructing
towns and factories and setting an unprecedented record
of economic accomplishments, it seemed that monopoly had
disappeared along with the divine rights of kings and feudalism.
It gradually became apparent, however, that the concentration
of economic power, like the concentration of political power,
may be temporarily submerged only to reappear in magnified
and more potent forms. Many states enacted or resurrected
the common law principle of making monopoly illegal. On
the national level, these efforts eventually culminated
in the passage of the Sherman Act in 1890.
Since that time the American people have been engaged in
an unceasing struggle with monopoly. If the American economy
is to realize its potential growth, to maintain its position
as a great and prosperous democracy in a developing world
economy, the process of monopolization must be halted.
The concentration of economic power in the hands of monopoly
is today higher than ever before in our history.
The two hundred and fifty largest corporations in this country
now hold roughly two-thirds of the nation usable manufacturing
facilities. These same two hundred and fifty corporations
either own or are in a position to control facilities equal
to those of all our manufacturing corporations in 1939.
Sixty-three of the largest manufacturing corporations have
sufficient liquid assets to purchase all of the usable government-owned
facilities, or to purchase the assets of seventy-one thousand
small corporations. That such a development is already underway
is apparent in the sharp rise in the number of mergers and
acquisitions. In the last quarter of 1945 there were more
mergers and acquisitions in manufacturing than at any time
in the previous fifteen years. This consolidation movement
spells further reduction in the number of independent concerns
and increasing concentration of control in major manufacturing
industries. Monopoly groups in our economy today thus control
a higher ration of raw materials, of plant facilities, of
technological know-how and research, and of financial power
than at any time before World War II.
What must be done?
In light of these facts it is necessary to ask how we may
best reestablish the condition upon which a system of free
enterprise depends—the conditions that must be met
if we are to have an expanding rather than a contracting
economy. Just as our representative form of government depends
on a system of checks and balances to maintain political
freedom, so it depends upon the conditions of free enterprise
and competition to maintain opportunity, to raise the standard
of living of our citizens, and to provide an expanding economic
life for the nation. In effect, this means that industrialists
and businessmen generally have not only an economic stake
but a social duty to refrain from monopolistic practices,
and to adhere to the principles of a free market.
We are now engaged in an immense drama of invention and
discovery—a second industrial revolution which in time
will affect every economic activity of mankind. Those who
really believe in free enterprise are convinced that to
meet the test of change most effectively industry must be
competitive. It must display a venturesome spirit in promoting
peacetime economic activity and in translating the gifts
of science into new types of production, new goods and services,
and new occupations. It is at this point that the threat
of monopoly is most potent. How can independent inventors
and businessmen create new enterprise if it is in the power
of cartels or combines to deny access to large areas of
technology? How can new firms enter a market if it is in
the jurisdiction of a monopoly group to stifle competition?
As long as monopoly is able illegally to rule over entire
industries, new ideas, new investment and new products cannot
enter the market. Our economy can be neither free nor expanding
if cartels are able to fence in the vast new frontier of
science.
It is characteristic of Americans always to feel that the
future beckons. They recognize that the future may hold
risks and that new economic problems will demand new answers,
but they are ready to apply their wits and strenuous labors
to finding the answers if always they can breathe the air
of freedom. The way of Monopoly, however, leads backward.
It is not the way of democracy.
Abridged from the Christian Register, November 1946
Unitarianism
offers the opportunity for a positive and buoyant
faith in the possibilities of man to create a
richer, fuller life for himself and his fellows,
for this and succeeding generations. It offers
a challenge to assure an immortality here on earth
for man and his world. The opportunity is for
man, and the challenge is to him. Thus religion
for the Unitarian is a dynamic force that elevates
life to a place of greater dignity. Because it
does not require rejection of any demonstrable
acts, and indeed invites inquiry and adventure,
the Unitarian way of life prevents inner conflicts
between religion and the known facts of life.
It seems to me that the spirit of freedom in which
Unitarians approach their religion is needed if
religion is to survive as any kind of force in
the affairs of men. Given such freedom, the church
could perform a vital role in leading men's thinking
to the ways of peace and well-ordered human relationships.
Traditional Christianity certainly has failed
to provide the moral leadership men need—to
which failure the war and the present confusion
are tragic witnesses but there may yet be time
to save ourselves if we can sweep aside the trappings
that have encumbered men's minds and spirits,
and fare boldly the challenge of the present crisis.
The advance of Unitarianism offers hope to those
who believe in man's infinite possibilities.
