368 REPORT ON COOPERATION IN AMERICAN EXPORT TRADE.
Of the nearly 1,600 affirmative schedule replies, only 80 made
the condition that such combinations should be under Federal or
other supervision, though it is to be noted that a very large number in
answering another question of the schedule urged Federal supervision
 to prevent export combinations from restraining domestic
trade. Thus a professor of economics wrote in part: LC
If we so intensely desire to develop foreign trade that we are willing to run
the risk of creating organizations of great efficiency and power, we must at the
same time assume the responsibility of controlling them so as to protect the
public interest, which would undoubtedly be jeopardized if these combinations
were unregulated.
A prominent Philadelphia attorney wrote:
Centralization of power always leads to its abuse, consequently such agencies
{export combinations), if permitted, should be closely scrutinized by governmental
 authority in a manner similar to the Federal banking system.

A small number Tlie their affirmative in various ways, such as
imiting it to combinations of noncompeting products, of staple
products, or to those in which small manufacturers shall be allowed
participation. Many, in approving the idea of combination, evidently
 had in mind only their own particular industry or a combination
 of noncompeting products.
Only 174 thought that combinations for export trade are not in
the public interest, including 13 who qualified their negative in
various ways.
Twelve expressed doubt, 2 were neutral, 8 thought the matter had
no bearing on the public interest, 31 stated that they had no opinion
or were not interested, and 211 failed to answer the question at all.
These 264, of course, are additional to the 1,740 replies mentioned
above.
Practically all assume that the development of foreign trade is for
the best interests of the country, although there are a few who contend
 that foreign trade would not be an advantage to this Nation.

B. Export COMBINATIONS ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Reduction in ewpenses.—The most prominent feature of the affirmative
 replies was the fact that about 625, or nearly 40 per cent, included
 among their reasons why combinations for foreign trade are
in the public interest the reduction of overhead, selling, advertising,
and other expenses resulting from their being shared among a numper
 of manufacturers or producers. Thus a professor of economics
wrote:
They are for economy of effort, cheapening of cost; and in so far as they
promote foreign trade by this process they are in the public interest.
A manufacturer of stoves doing only a small export business wrote:
We must adopt every item of saving in costs and expense of doing business
if we would compete with foreign nations. Combination gives us that saving
which is necessary, and even with combination we will fail in many lines.
Dnbridled competition is the most expensive method of doing business. In the
stove business of this country there are 300 competitors, each sending traveling
men in the same territory, and each spending vast sums in duplicate patterns
lo meet competition. If one combination could control all the industry, stoves
could be sold the consumer at a 10 to 15 per cent lower price, and the manufacturers
 make 10 to 15 per cent extra profit.