Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/564

the logs the of every Law.owner who presents them, 517 The Coal Mines and common law principles alone without the aid of statute? Because the position is those owners cannot get their logs to market such in that business that any other position without legal wrong except overland. Clearly, would be intolerable. Whenever an ex in such case, it is not possible that the court change is established, a new applicant can can fail to point out the consequence, that get the service in any usual community in an obligation has been assumed commen two ways, either by being taken on by the surate with the privilege — Weymouth v. telephone company or by stringing separate Log Driving Co., 7 1 Me. 29. It will be seen wires from his own store to every other that the state of things is similar in all of place of business in the city, in the state, in these cases — a situation which could not be the country. Such an alternative as that left without law; otherwise a disruption of puts the applicant completely within the the industrial order would impend. That condition of affairs may be summed power of the telephone company, unless it is recognized that the law will compel the up in the single phrase, that Mr. Chaplin service, if the company refuse to perform it uses — virtual monopoly (p. 26). Indeed, — State v. Telephone Co., 17 Neb. 126. it is competition that characterizes by its Take again the case of sewerage service. presence private calling, for it is by that In the same way, unless a householder is let law that private business is regulated. We into the system at a proportionate rate, he may be sure in the most of the trades that must in the usual case construct drains for we will get prompt serVice, that we will be himself miles in length through private lands. furnished adequate facilities, that we will be Obviously, then, the corporation that has such charged fair prices, and that we will get control of the situation as that must be held about the same treatment as any one else; to be a public concern, so that they cannot because free competition will produce all stipulate to provide service only upon their that; and therefore no coercive law is neces sary. Now in the exceptional cases where own terms, — as in one case that an appli cant must have water from them as well as there is a monopoly, competition by the sewerage, by providing that the price shall be definition is absent; and therefore the law the same for sewerage alone as for water and must step in to regulate, else there will be sewerage — Mobile v. Water Supply Co., injustice, oppression, overcharge and dis 130 Ala. 379. Another late example is the crimination. The recognition of this latter irrigation canal company which builds a class of callings has been slow because it in volved a departure from that theory of free reservoir at the head of a stream to appro priate the water and constructs a system of competition upon which the present indus canals and ditches to distribute the water trial organization depends; but surely this to farmers far down the valley. In such reluctance was unintelligent; for clearly it case the farmer who applies must get from is no inconsistency to abandon a general pol them or have none at all; and accordingly icy in a situation where it is inapplicable. A review of the instances that have been the holding must be. to prevent such oppres cited will show that the conception of virtual sion that these are public works — Wheeler v. Irrigation Co., 10 Col. 582. One other monopoly will cover everything. Nothing example, the log driving company which has narrower will do, as for example the differ an exclusive right to drive all logs down a ence sometimes put forward between an un certain stream; unless such a company takes dertaking of a public service in distinction to