DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42346#0019
THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH
7
beneficial and in accord with sound principles of public
policy. For the lessons of experience, as well as the deduc-
tion of reason, amply demonstrate the public interest is not
subserved by competition which reduces the rate of trans-
portation below the standard of fair compensation.” 1
“I think it would be unsafe to adopt as a rule of law
every maxim which is current in the counting room. It
was said some three hundred years ago that trade and
traffic were the life of every commonwealth, especially of
an island. 2 If it be true also that competition is the life
of trade, it may follow such premises that he who relaxes
competition commits an act injurious to trade; and not
only so, but he commits an overt act of treason against
the commonwealth. But I apprehend that it is not true
that competition is the life of trade. On the contrary,
that maxim is the least reliable of the host that may be
picked up in every market place. It is, in fact, a shib-
boleth of mere gambling speculation, and is hardly en-
titled to take rank as an axiom in the jurisprudence of this
country. I believe universal observation will attest that for
the last quarter of a century competition in trade has caused
more individual distress, if not more public injury, than
the want of competition. Indeed, by reducing prices be-
low or raising them above values (as the nature of the
trade prompted), competition has done more to monopolize
trade, or to secure exclusive advantages in it, than has
been done by contract.” 8
It is interesting to find such expressions regarding com-
petition from the mouths of judges called upon to decide
actual cases involving competition. Theirs is no academic
theory evolved in the seclusion of the closet, but con-
clusions reached in the adjustment of controversies be-
tween man and man.
There are plenty of courts that have held otherwise,
that have talked about competition in the old way, that
1 M. & L. R. R. Co. vs. Concord R. R. Co., 66 N. H. too.
2 City of London’s Case, 8 Co. 125.
3 Kellogg vs. Larkin (1851, 3 Pinney Wis.) 123, 56 Am. Dec.
178-181.
7
beneficial and in accord with sound principles of public
policy. For the lessons of experience, as well as the deduc-
tion of reason, amply demonstrate the public interest is not
subserved by competition which reduces the rate of trans-
portation below the standard of fair compensation.” 1
“I think it would be unsafe to adopt as a rule of law
every maxim which is current in the counting room. It
was said some three hundred years ago that trade and
traffic were the life of every commonwealth, especially of
an island. 2 If it be true also that competition is the life
of trade, it may follow such premises that he who relaxes
competition commits an act injurious to trade; and not
only so, but he commits an overt act of treason against
the commonwealth. But I apprehend that it is not true
that competition is the life of trade. On the contrary,
that maxim is the least reliable of the host that may be
picked up in every market place. It is, in fact, a shib-
boleth of mere gambling speculation, and is hardly en-
titled to take rank as an axiom in the jurisprudence of this
country. I believe universal observation will attest that for
the last quarter of a century competition in trade has caused
more individual distress, if not more public injury, than
the want of competition. Indeed, by reducing prices be-
low or raising them above values (as the nature of the
trade prompted), competition has done more to monopolize
trade, or to secure exclusive advantages in it, than has
been done by contract.” 8
It is interesting to find such expressions regarding com-
petition from the mouths of judges called upon to decide
actual cases involving competition. Theirs is no academic
theory evolved in the seclusion of the closet, but con-
clusions reached in the adjustment of controversies be-
tween man and man.
There are plenty of courts that have held otherwise,
that have talked about competition in the old way, that
1 M. & L. R. R. Co. vs. Concord R. R. Co., 66 N. H. too.
2 City of London’s Case, 8 Co. 125.
3 Kellogg vs. Larkin (1851, 3 Pinney Wis.) 123, 56 Am. Dec.
178-181.