Let us consider the opposite alternative. It cannot be a good thing to have such a great proportion of the active business men of the country, who bear the highest personal character, engaged in illegal contracts. Let us therefore take them within the pale of the law. They seem to be determined to make contracts with each other in restraint of competition; and believe, indeed, that they are forced to do it by modern conditions of trade. Suppose we were to legalize these contracts and permit the establishment of monopolies. What can we then do to protect the public from extortion in prices and adulteration in its products on the part of the monopoly?
In the first place, now that we have legalized monopolies there is no more excuse for secrecy. To work in darkness and privacy befits law-breakers, but is needless for legitimate enterprises. Let the law provide that every contract for the restriction of competition shall be in writing, and that a copy shall be filed, as a deed for real estate is filed now, with the proper city or town officer where the property affected is situate, and also with the Secretary of State where the contract is made. Certainly no honest man will object to this provision. The contention has been made that contracts to restrict competition were necessarily kept secret because they were "without the pale of the law." Very well; we have legalized them. There can be no further defense of secrecy. If any now refuse to make public their contracts to restrict competition, the refusal is evidence that the contract is for the injury of the public or some competitor and therefore properly punishable. We shall now know just what monopolies exist; just what is their strength, and for just how long a time their members are bound. Let us next see what measures we can adopt to prevent these legalized monopolies from practising extortion upon the public and abusing the power they have gained by the combination.
The first important means to secure this which the author would suggest is simply an extension of the common-law principle of non-discrimination. A man in conducting certain sorts of business is permitted to do as he chooses. He may sell to one person and refuse to sell to another; he may give to one and withhold from another. But if he enters business as the keeper of an inn or as a common carrier of passengers or freight, he can no longer exercise partiality. He has _elected to become a necessary servant of the public_, and as such he is bound to serve impartially all who apply. In the same way a manufacturer while he engages in business under the usual laws of competition, may sell to whom he pleases and exercise such preference as he chooses. But when he combines with all other manufacturers of the same sort in a combination to restrict competition, he and his allies voluntarily change their relation to the public. Is it not true that they do actually _elect to become necessary servants of the public_--far more necessary, indeed, than the inn-keeper or the stage-coach driver,--and ought they not therefore to be placed under similar legal restrictions?