Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 13.djvu/818

MONOPOLY. 734 MONOTHEISM. not, liowever, prevent a State from giving ex- clusive privileges to conduct public callings upon the theory that power to regulate and control public callings was an essential right of the State, recognized at common law and not in- tended to be destroyed by the Fourteenth Amend- ment. Thus the Stale may grant the exclusive right to operate public ferries, turnpikes, rail- roads, grain elevators, etc. Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment preclude a State from granting exclusive privileges in the proper exercise of its police power. The State may thus grant monopolies for the sale of liquor, or the sale of lottery tickets, or the erection of a slaughter-house, or the conduct of a slaughtering business within a city. See I'lBLIC C.LL1XG; COXSTITLTIOXAL LaW ; POLICE POWEK. The United States Constitution expressly con- fers upon Congress the power of granting copy- rights and patents to authors and to the origina- tors of useful inventions. o other power to create monopoly is expressly vested in Congress, and it is probable that it is without such power, except vhen incidental to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, as, for example, the power to regulate conuncrce, bor- row money, or collect duties and imports. Natural monopolies exist where the conditions of the enterprise are such as to preclude com- petition. In a general way, economists some- tinu>s speak of the possession of land as con- stituting a natural monopoly. As monopoly im- plies a lack of competition as well as special privilege, the term stricth* applies only to cases in which the ownershi]) of the privileges is centred in one person, or at least a vers' few- persons capable of acting in harmony. Land and other natural resources, such as water ])ower and mineral wealth, are so widely diffused that monopoly in a strict sense rarely arises from their ownership. The most importjint instances of the so-called natural monopolies arise in con- nection with certain pul)lic sen'ices. particularly in cities, and are iisualjy connected with the right of way through public highways. Such services are the furnishing of gas, water, trans- portation, and communication in cities. As the right to make use of the city streets to lay gas and water pipes, electric conduits, or to build tramways cannot be granted to all, competition in furnishing such services is practically ex- eluded. In some respects, particularly as con- cerns the right of way through municipalities, steam railroads belong in the same class. Com- petition among (hem is possible on a larger scale than among street railways, but they un- doubtedly possess some elements of natural mo- nopoly. As the policy of the law has eliminated from our economic life legal monopolies which do not conform to the principle of i)ulilic interest, so there is a growing demand that these natural monopolies shall be administered in the public interest. In it.s extreme form it calls for the municipalization of such enterprises, while many who are unwilling to accept this solution demand far greater caution in the granting of friinchises hnd a much stricter siper'isinn of the manner in which such franchises are used than has here- tofore been common in .American municipalities. Monopoly Price. It can hardly be saiil that the price of the commodities or services con- trolled by a public monopoly is subject to any general law. The Government may li.x prices below cost of service, or it may purposely make them so high a.s to discourage consumption. Pri- vate monopolies, on the other hand, naturally aim to secure the greatest net profit ; and the price which will yield llie greatest surplus al)ove cost may be termed monopoly price. The deter- mination of such a price is a dillicult matter in practice, since a large number of factors have to be taken into account. If the monopolized conmiodity is a necessity of life, as, for example, salt, the price may be fixed very high, since high prices would not greatly diminish consumption. If, on tiie other hand, the commodity is sui article of luxury, or one out of a group of conniiodities which satisfy the same want, a material rise in jjrice will greatly limit con- sumption, so that while a large profit may be made on each unit sold, small sales will reduce total profits. Again, it may be that an increa.se in the quantity of service ])erformed or goods produced will liy no means demand a propor- tional outlay. In that case the monopoly may best subserve its own interests by keeping prices low. Thus a street railway company can gen- erally double the number of passengers carried without doubling the cost of service; and may therefore find it profitable to lower fares. See Tblsts; Patent; Copykigut. BinLiooRAFiiY. The most satisfactorj' recent general discussion of monopoly is Ely's Monop- olies and Trusts (New York. 1900). For a concise discussion of monopoly price, consult Marshall. Priiiri/iles of Economics ( London, 180.7). pp. 5.3J-547. A scholarly discussion of the theory of monopoly is Schallle's Thcovic tier nusschJiessendcn Absntzvcrlwllnisse (Tiibingen, 1867). An interesting discussion of a fiscal mo- nopoly is W'icksett, Studien iibcr das oster- rcich ischc Tabulcsmonopol i Stuttgart, 1897 ) . Con- sult, also, King. "Alcohol Monopoly in Switzer- land." Economic Reiieir (18!i;S). anil Ratlalovich. '"State Monopoly of J^^pirits in Russia." Journal of the Stnfistical Society of London (1901). See bililinfrraphy under article Trusts. MONOPTERAL (from Lat. monopteros. from Gk. /wfdxTcpos, having a single row of colunms. from fj.6vos, inonos. single -|- vTeftiy, ptcron, wing, row of ccdumns). A circular building in Gra^co-Koman architecture, in which a single row of columns surrounds the central space or cella and carries the roof. Such are the temple of Vesta at Rome and that at Tivoli. MON'OTHEISM (from Gk. ^m, monos, single -f- ee6i, IIilos. god). The belief that there is but one (ioil, in distinction from polytheism, belief in many gods. It has been held that monotheism was a primitive belief, and there are many references to the pure primitive lielief in one God. Xot only was this assumed in the case of the Hebrews, who with the Mohamme- dans and Christians are the best type of mono- theists, hut even in the case of India the Hindus in the works of (arly Sanskrit scholars are credited with having had anil lost a primitive monotheism. The opposite view has been strong- ly enforced in the last decades by the work of historians, anthropologists, and philologists. Thus the Hebrews became monotheists only after re- jecting, in the course of a long stniggle, an ear- lier belief in gods of stone, divine aninuils, and