284
THE GREEN BAG
always justify interference with the business of another. The theory is that free com petition is for the best interests of society; for it is believed that the law does its best for all when it gives to every man an equal chance. Enough has been quoted to show how inveterate the belief has become that free competition is for the best interests of society. The state acting through the courts is permitting the struggle for advancement to go on with the fewest possible rules because the most of us believe that this is for the best for all of us. It is not a perfect way of ordering our world, far from it. No economist can fail to see that the com petitive system has not only its costly mistakes, but its inevitable wastes. More over, there is in some lines of production and distribution a danger that if the law permits competition to go to every length, the survival of the fittest only may unduly reduce the number of the competitors so that in the end much of the benefit of com petition may be lost. These are ugly facts, and yet trained observers of sober judg ment are few who will not join with the mass of men in supporting the competitive system against every substitute which may be urged. For the most of us still believe
that the advances in the arts and the march of commerce in modern times have been due to the prevalence of competition. More than this, we believe that never in the his tory of mankind has the exceptional man had such opportunity, nor the average man such return for his industry as in modern times under the competitive system. And as we have seen, so long as this is public opinion, the public policy for free competi tion will remain. Cambridge, Mass., April, 1907.
It will have been noticed that the discussion of fair competition in this article has been confined as far as possible to cases of individual competi tion. Cases of competition by combinations seem to the writer to involve additional consider ations and these cases he has treated elsewhere, particularly in 17 Green Bag 21, 210. It should be pointed out that most of the cases cited there are consistent with the general theory stated here. It is generally recognized in all of these cases that any interference by joint defendants with the business right of a plaintiff constitutes a tort prima facie. According to the weight of authority certain forms of combined action are held unfair methods even in usual competition, while the minority cases justify such concerted action in most cases which would, be fair competition by individuals.
