the common law of monopoly might apply to rate franchise must not begiven undue weight. such a case is, perhaps, a graver question than The law of public callings grew up largely in Mr. Wyman seems to consider it, but for the connection with individuals who went into present purpose that question may be dis the business of innkeepers, carriers, whar missed. Conceding that Mr. Wyman's test fingers, millers, etc., etc. In its most strik is substantially correct, and stating it in very ing modern application, that of Munn v. nearly his own language, we find it reduced Illinois, the element of corporate charters to the question whether the circumstances played no part. Doubtless an exclusive fran surrounding the particular business are such chise from the State might be sufficient to that effective competition may be expected. constitute the necessary monopoly; but it is If the single grocery store in a town charges clearly not essential. The element of mo excessive prices, there is every temptation to nopoly in the case of the old-time carrier and innkeeper arose simply from the fact that some enterprising person to start a rival es tablishment on the next street, and as a under existing conditions there was, in the practical matter that is likely to be the result great majority of instances, not business in nine cases out of ten. If an ambitious enough to reward competition. Rivalry was capitalist buys up all the plants engaged in in no way impossible, but from a practical the manufacture of a certain article, experi point of view improbable, and in fact usually ence has shown that, at least in many cases, absent. It is obvious that .such a situation he can maintain his monopoly for any length may come to exist in a given calling through of time only by conducting his business on a change in conditions, and that such change terms which do not afford too great a tempta in conditions may in itself, and from a prac tion to other ambitious capitalists to enter into tical point of view, be not transitory but per competition. How far this check is a suffi manent. Before applying these principles to the case cient one, is a question only recently made vital by modern conditions, and yet to be in hand, it should be further pointed out that worked out by judges and legislators. But the monopoly need not be absolute. This for the present we may assume, as Mr. Wy is emphasized in the Munn case, is supported man claims, that such a monopoly is not in by the entire law on the subject, and, it is the nature of things of the kind, with refer assumed, will not be questioned by any one. It remains to apply the principles above ence to its dangers and its permanency, which calls for the intervention of the courts outlined, in which, so far as they go, there through the application of the law of public does not seem to be any vital difference of opinion between Mr. Wyman and the writer, callings. There remain, however, many classes of to the case of the Pennsylvania coal mines. cases in which that law has been held to In the first place, have we there a business be applicable. Mr. Wyman cites as ex into which any enterprising business man or amples the telephone company, the water capitalist may enter, whenever the conduct company, and the irrigation company, wherein of the business makes the rewards of compe the element of monopoly is perpetuated by tition look tempting? Obviously not. There the possession of a charter not likely to be is only one considerable supply of anthracite duplicated for the benefit of any other com coal, so far as known, which can be profitably pany, or by the control of the only available mined for the American market, and that source of supply. The element of a corpo supply is now in the hands of the Pennsyl
