Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/197

This page needs to be proofread.


The Green Bag

sales, and prices charged, by prohibiting voted to general economic considera tions regarding the control of monopoly, sales at or below cost and discrimina tion between individuals or localities, we have a lawyer-like discussion of and by establishing a federal commis common-law principles applicable to sion possessing visitorial powers which the same object of regulation. Professor would adjust all controversies and see Wyman shows the conservative bias frequent among lawyers in favor of to the enforcement of the law. Mr. Eddy's views may be somewhat unwritten as opposed to statute law. utopian, for it is doubtful whether the He does not share Professor Clark's commercial world is yet ready for the view that the principles of the Standard Oil and Tobacco decisions should be de frankness and publicity that he advo cates. The difficulty of reaching an fined in new legislation. On the con agreement as to the meaning of fair trary, he considers that there is already profit, fair price, and price-cutting, is abundant substantive law for the regu also a stumbling-block. But it is re- lation of monopolies. More remedial feshing to have a direct, forcible state legislation may be needed, and Profes ment of views based on a knowledge of sor Wyman takes for granted the estab business conditions and addressed to lishment of whatever administrative the understanding of the hard-headed machinery may be required. We are business man of today. Mr. Eddy, as likely to have more legislation, "but someone has said, is on the right track, the lines upon which this legislation and his opinions are worthy of careful will proceed have been laid down by the consideration. courts already" (p. 212). The author expounds the development Professor Clark's book is more con servative in tone, but reflects somewhat in the common law of restraint of trade similar views without dealing in any and of public callings, and declares that novel and sanguine proposals. Professor we need to apply the old principles of Clark and his collaborator believe in the common law to the old problem of competition, though they believe that monopoly in a modern guise. The law of public callings, which requires that all the principal unfair methods of com petition should be stopped and that who come shall be served, and that they the principles underlying the Standard shall be served with adequate facilities, Oil and Tobacco decisions should be at reasonable rates, and without dis reduced to precise statute law. Com crimination, has long been applied to petition is declared to be not played out, public service corporations, and the but necessary to force monopoly along author agrees that we should apply the the ever-open road of progress. Legal same law to private monopolies, as they ized combinations should prove their too are affected with a public interest. right to exist solely by demonstrating We may observe that this conception their industrial efficiency. As Mr. Eddy of the public character of industrial would likewise leave the door open to monopoly leads logically to public owner competition the two books have much ship, as well as to public control. Where in common. But many readers will directors have a two-fold responsibility prefer Professor Clark's more cautious and a two-fold interest, public and pri conclusions and his more moderate vate, the community is not in a posi remedies In contrast for thetoexisting a popular situation. work de tion to reap the full advantage of pub lic control. But as private manage