A IVord More as to the Coal Mines. vania coal operators. In other words, we have a case in which the element of monopoly is perpetuated by the control of the only available source of supply. The only com petition which can be looked for, then, is competition between the owners, whoever they may be from time to time, of the Penn sylvania mines. It was not intended, in the pamphlet which started the present discus sion, to lay stress upon the actual control of the mines at the present day by one or three or seven or a dozen individuals and corpora tions, except so far as that fact is evidence bearing upon the possibility and probability, under existing and practically permanent business conditions, of limited and more or less unified control. A similar fact was similarly emphasized in the Munn case. It may be that at one time the owners of the anthracite mines were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently lacking in business acumen, so -that competition between them assured the public of fair and reasonable service. It is theoretically possible that such a situation may return : but that is not enough. Have we a state of things in which we may fairly expect that full and free competition will as a general rule prevail, or have we a situation in which such competition is as little to be counted upon practically, as in the case of the old-time carrier and innkeeper? It is believed that well-informed men of affairs, or sensible judges, could answer these questions in only one way. As was said in the pam phlet, we have " an absolute and inextinguish able ' virtual ' monopoly." It would seem as if Mr. Wyman must, in reaching his conclusion, have ignored the decision and much of the language of the Supreme Court in the Munn case. Theoreti cally, there was nothing to prevent a dozen persons from building a dozen new ware houses in Chicago, and competing with the elevators which then handled all the business.
573
There was lacking there the element of a definite limit to competition, imposed in the case of the coal mines by the fact that all the available deposits of coal are now being worked. It was true, however, that compet ing elevators must be built within a limited territory, at considerable expense, and subject always to the danger that the presence of too many of them would destroy the profits of all. It was doubtless these considerations which led the Supreme Court, in the exercise of judicial common sense, to find a virtual monopoly, and one not casual or transitory. If there is any advantage either way, the case of the coal mines, viewed with a similar practical common sense, would seem to be distinctly stronger. In brief, it may be said that the law has always recognized a compe tition necessarily limited to a small body of persons, as a competition not to be relied upon for securing the public welfare. It is exactly such a situation that is characterized in the Munn case as constituting a " virtual monopoly." Numerous other cases might be cited on this point, but none could be found more elaborate, more thorough, more weighty, or more entirely in point than Munn v. Illinois. It will thus be seen that while accepting Mr. Wyman's statement of general principles as substantially similar to that which the writer endeavored to make in his' pamphlet, we come to a conclusion from the application of those principles directly opposite to that which Mr. Wyman has reached. It should be added that a judicial decision, holding that the business of mining anthra cite coal in Pennsylvania is a public calling, would not, as Mr. Wyman maintains that it would, result in placing all coal mining in that class of employments. It is an essen tial element of the case that the particular kind of coal found in a limited district of Pennsylvania, possesses qualities which dis
