or a pauper, shall be imprisoned not more than three years. Every man, who is epileptic, who shall carnally know any female under the age of forty-five years, and every female under the age of forty-five years who shall consent to be carnally known by any man who is epileptic, imbecile, or feeble-minded, shall be imprisoned not more than three years. 1895, Ch. 325.

§ 1357. Joining Persons in Marriage without Authority. Whoever undertakes to join persons in marriage, knowing that he is not authorized so to do, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.-1865, Rev. 1888, § 1561.

CHAPTER IV

MONOPOLIES AND TRUSTS

I. General Statement of the Problem

FIRST of all, it is essential that we should have a clear idea of monopoly as a starting-point. Το use the language of the philosopher Locke, the word "monopoly" is a sign standing for an idea. What is that idea? Unless we know exactly what it is that we are talking about when we are discussing monopoly our own thought will be confused, and the confusion will be multiplied many fold when the discussion becomes general. There can be no doubt that in economic literature, as well as in the periodical press, this one word-sign, monopoly, has been made to stand for many different and more or less antagonistic ideas, and as a consequence the controversies in which we have been engaged concerning monopoly have produced comparatively little action and even less light. Undoubtedly the economists are quite quite largely responsible for the confusion of thought which has been introduced into the discussion of monopoly, for, extending the term to cover related but quite different economic concepts, they have departed

from the best usage of the English language. The courts in their decisions have not gotten so far away from the correct use of language, but their decisions also show confusion of thought, due to the fact that they have frequently attempted to introduce ideas appropriate to the seventeenth century into recent decisions without that modification which the mighty industrial evolution of three centuries has necessitated.

To what do we oppose most sharply the word "monopoly "in our thought? The answer at once given is competition. Monopoly is the opposite of competition. Competition means, among other things, rivalry in the offer of services or commodities. When each one of two or more persons seeks to induce us to purchase of him, and not of others, services or commodities which he has for sale, we have a condition of competition. Whenever, on the contrary, we have only one seller, we have a condition of monopoly; and we have only one seller when all those who have services or commodities of a particular kind for sale have so bound themselves together that they act as one man. What has been said with respect to sales would also hold true with respect to purchases. It is unity in some one kind of business which gives us monopoly. The following is then offered as a definition of monopoly which accords with good English usage: 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.

It is not now possible to discuss this definition exhaustively. One or two things, however, must be said. What is essential is control of price. The other things which monopoly carries with it flow from such control and are not secure without it. In the second place, the fact must be emphasized that absolute unity of action is not requisite. The essence of monopoly is substantial and controlling unity of action, and this is given when a combination of men acting together as a unit have a dominating position over the sale of some one kind of commodity or service. Mr. Havemeyer, president of the American Sugar Refining Company, at one time said that a man producing eighty per cent of the product had such a position. The percentage, however, is a variable one.

The definition of monopoly which is here given. brings before us its social significance in several most important particulars. As it is the opposite of competition, so the protection which competition gives to society is removed by monopoly. The theory of competition is that we are protected against unreasonable demands by the rivalry existing among competitors. The farmer who is tempted to ask an exorbitant price for his potatoes is held. in check by his neighbors who have potatoes which they likewise desire to sell. The retail merchant

1 The entire subject is discussed at far greater length in the author's work, "Monopolies and Trusts."

who places an excessive valuation upon his services finds that his rivals, more moderate in their demands, take away his customers from him. This is all simple enough, but it has a profound meaning which has made a deep impress upon English common law. Competition has been regarded for ages as a corner-stone of our industrial order, while monoply has been held to be a menace to that order. The decisions of courts, both in our own country and England, proceed upon the hypothesis that competition is the palladium of our industrial liberties. It is true that competition is a corner-stone of our present social order. If competition is removed, something else must be put in place of it. It is because this truth has been so clearly grasped by socialism, and because socialism does propose to put something else in the place of competition, that the logical position of socialism has proved so strong. It is essential that we should clearly grasp the fact that we must have competition or something else in the place of it. If this is so, the popular apprehension in regard to the growth of monoply does not exaggerate its significance, however confused and perplexed public opinion may be in other particulars. The next question which suggests itself naturally is this: To what extent does monopoly actually prevail? Has competition been replaced to such an extent that the competitive order has been seriously disturbed? If we cannot give a precise and definite answer to the first question, there can be no doubt that the