high profits naturally begat intruders upon their commerce, and in order to secure themselves against encroachment, the patentees were armed with high and arbitrary powers from the council, by which they were enabled to oppress the people at pleasure, and to exact money from such as they thought proper to accuse of interfering with their patent. And while all domestic intercourse was thus restrained, lest any scope should remain for industry, almost every species of foreign commerce was confined to exclusive companies, who bought and sold at any price that they themselves thought proper to offer or exact." Such was monopoly by royal patent in the days of good Queen Bess.

Was such oppression and economic folly long endured?

No. In 1602, such patents were declared void, in a case growing out of a monopoly in playing cards granted by Elizabeth to one Edward Darcy, a groom of the privy chamber.

What doctrine concerning the evils of monopolies did the court here lay down?

It held: First, "The price of the same commodity will be raised, for he who has the sole selling of any commodity, may and will make the price as he pleases. The second incident to a monopoly is, that, after the monopoly is granted, the commodity is not so good and merchantable as it was before, for the patentee, having the sole trade, regards only his private benefit and not the commonwealth. Third, it tends to the impoverishment of divers artificers and others, who before, by the labor of their hands in their art or trade, had maintained themselves and their families, now will of necessity be constrained to live in idleness and beggary." This position of the court was afterward confirmed by parliamentary statute. In later years the rigor of the statute laws against monopolies in restraint of trade was somewhat relaxed, and under George III the laws of Edward VI against regrators, forestallers and engrossers were repealed. But the courts construed the enactment their own way, and held that to create a monopoly in the legal sense, it was not necessary to get possession of the whole of any product, or even of a large part, but it was illegal if there was engrossing enough to increase the price at a specified time and place. This rule was established in a case in 1800.

What great industrial change modified the doctrine of monooly?

The introduction of machinery and improvements in transportation. Under such new conditions, wrought as by a revolution, many of the statutes against monopolies were repealed, and the courts treated with less severity combinations of capital developing business in the new way.

Upon what case did English practice pivot and face about toward the new industrial day?

The case of the Mogul Steamship Company vs. McGregor, decided in the court of appeal. This decision finds certain acts creating monopolies to be legal, that had previously been held illegal and void. In this case the defendants were firms of ship owners in the China tea trade. Working for a monopoly in the homeward business they offered a 5 per cent rebate to merchants shipping exclusively in the ships of this association, or "conferThe plaintiffs, not being in the combination, suffered. The court, sustaining the lower court, held that the association was formed to keep the tea trade in their own hands, and not to ruin the Mogul Steamship Company, and that it was through no personal malice or ill will toward that company that they had combined to do business. Therefore the combination was not unlawful, and no action for conspiracy could be maintained. But were the means adopted unlawful? The court declared that the means adopted were competition carried to the bitter end, but that to limit combinations of capital, when used in competition, as the plaintiffs proposed, "would, in the present day, be impossible— would be only another method of attempting to set boundaries to the tides." Furthermore, speaking in general principles, if the real object of combinations were to enjoy what was one's own, or to acquire for one's self some advantage in one's property or trade, and what was done was done honestly, peaceably and withany harmful acts, it could not be said that combination was entered into without just cause or excuse. And, borrowing, for the benefit of traders, from the decision in another case, relating to workmen and masters, the court said: "The intention of the law is at present to allow either of them to follow the dictates of their own will, with respect to their own actions and their own property, and

In water transportation combinations to fix rates, passenger and freight, are everywhere common. In England "chambers of shipping" are organized in different ports, in which principal ship owners join to fix rates. The combination is even international, both English and German companies uniting to maintain rates. In the South African trade a GermanBritish combination controls by a system of rebates, 10 per cent being deducted from the freight rate and returned to each shipper on condition that he ships no goods by vessels not in the combination. It does not follow that these so-called "shipping rings" are popular. In March, 1898, the Association of Chambers of Commerce of England called upon the government to withdraw subsidies from shipping companies which joined in agreements whereby British shippers were charged more than foreign competitors. Monopolies of today are indeed far wider than national boundaries. In ocean cables competition brought on consolidation and agreements, and now free competition in cable service is practically_unknown. England and her colonies are suffering and protesting.—Condensed from "Monopolies and the People," second edition, 1899, CHARLES WHITING BAKER, editor Engineering News.

either has a right to study to promote his own advantage, or to combine with others to promote their mutual advantage.'

Has popular sentiment in England sustained the courts' construction of the rights of combination?

Yes, under Victoria, the common law has been modified by statute, abolishing the offenses of "badgering, engrossing, forestalling and regrating." By later statutes there has been an enlargement of "the power of combination between workmen and workmen, and between master and master, for the purpose of maintaining and enforcing their respective interests and to remove the objection of being in restraint of trade, to which some of such combinations had been obnoxious."

What seems to be the sentiment in Germany toward trusts?

The highest court of the German empire, sitting at Leipsic, has approved the formation of trusts, and, as reported by the Berlin Tageblatt, on the following grounds: "When in certain industrial pursuits the prices of products are sinking so low as to make business impossible or as to endanger the successful carrying on thereof, the crisis which necessarily follows is not only disastrous to the individual concern, but also to international affairs generally. For this reason it is in the interest of the entire state that inadequately low prices shall not prevail too long in any industrial branch. Realizing this principle, the legislative bodies have repeatedly, and only recently, undertaken to bring about an increase in the prices of certain products by the establishment of productive duties. For this reason it cannot be deemed certainly, or generally speaking, obnoxious to the interests of the community when the manufacturers of certain articles form what is called a trust, with the object in view of preventing ruinous competition, and for the purpose of mitigating the downward tendency in the prices of their particular manufactures. On the contrary, such combinations can be looked upon, not only as warranted by the instincts of self-preservation, but as a measure for the interest of the whole community as well. Especially is this true in cases where prices are so low that the manufacturers of the article are on the verge of financial disaster. For this reason the building of syndicates or trusts has been designated by a number of authorities as a means which, when properly managed, would prove extremely expedient to prevent detrimental and unwarranted overproduction."

What is the American doctrine as shown in decisions and laws? "The law on this subject, as established and administered in England, is accepted in this country only in a general sense. As a rule it may be said that in the consideration of the legality of a combination or covenant in restraint of trade, the decision will turn upon the reasonableness of the restraint. A court of equity

will inquire, not whether the restraint extends to an entire state or to the nation, but whether it is a reasonable and proper protection of the party in whose favor the covenant is made, and whether it is prejudicial to the public interests. At present there is a strong tendency to the restricting of the right of restraint.""Treatise on the Laws of Monopolies and Industrial Trusts, as Administered in England and United States of America,” Charles Fisk Beach, Sr.

Upon what principle do the courts decline to uphold contracts in restraint of trade?

On the ground of their unreasonableness. Several considerations have been stated by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts: 1. Such contracts injure the parties making them, because they diminish their means of procuring livelihoods and a competency for their families. They tempt improvident persons, for the sake of present gain, to deprive themselves of the power to make future acquisitions, and they expose such person to imposition and oppression. 2. They tend to deprive the public of the services of men in the employments and capacities in which they may be most useful to the community as well as to themselves. They discourage industry and enterprise, and diminish the products of ingenuity and skill. 4. They prevent competition and enhance prices. 5. They expose the public to all the evils of monopoly. And this especially is applicable to wealthy companies and large corporations who have the means, unless restrained by law, to exclude rivalry, monopolize business and engross the market. Against evils like these wise laws protect individuals and the public by declaring all such contracts void.

Then what contracts in restraint of trade will be held valid? "A contract in restraint of trade will be held valid where it is limited in its operation, is founded upon a valuable consideration and is reasonable in its provisions. It must not, be oppressive to the party restrained from taking advantage of his necessities; it must not involve a sacrifice of his interests as the result of an injudicious surrender of his rights, and it must not be prejudicial to the interests of the public. All covenants in general restraint of trade, that is all contracts which restrain a man from carrying on business, or from the practice of his profession or trade without any limit of time or space, or without a valuable consideration are void. But all agreements in particular or partial restraint of trade, that is all agreements which are subject to proper limitations of time and space, which are not unreasonable or prejudicial to the public welfare, will be upheld."-CHARLES FISK BEACH, SR.

THE NATURE OF MONOPOLY.

IV.

What is a popular synonym for "trust"?

Monopoly.

What is monoply?

"Monopoly means that substantial unity of action on the part of one or more persons engaged in some kind of business which gives exclusive control, more particularly, although not solely, with respect to price."-PROF. RICHARD T. Ely.

What then is the key to monopoly?

Unity of action-the acting together like one man-unity of control in business.

How may you define monopoly by percentage?

The man or men who own 80 per cent of a business, and control it, have monopoly. ("Monopoly" is composed of two Greek words meaning "exclusive sale.")

What is another definition of monopoly?

"Such an exclusive privilege to carry on a traffic, or deal in, or control a given class of articles as will enable the holder to raise prices materially above what they would be if the traffic or dealing were free to citizens generally."-CENTURY DICTIONARY. What then seems to practically constitute monopoly? The exclusive right of selling.

If a man would reason truly and legislate wisely on monopoly what would he better do at the start?

He would better distinguish between production on a large scale and monopoly.

What further distinction should he sharply make?

The distinction between mere combination and monopoly.

The definitions and essential opinions constituting this chapter are gathered from "Monopolies and Trusts," by Prof. Richard T. Ely, University of Wisconsin, 1899.