There is still a vulgar and common use of the term monopoly which is incorrect, inasmuch as it has not the sense which monopoly had.
If a number of individuals were to unite for the purpose of producing any particular article or commodity, and if they should succeed in selling such ar ticle very extensively, and almost solely, sucji individuals in popular language would be said to have a monopoly. Now, as these individuals have no advantages given them by the law over other per sons, it is clear they can only sell more of their commodity than other persons by producing the commodity cheaper and better. Such so-called monopoly then is neither the old legal monopoly, nor does it rest on any legal privilege. There would however be no objection to calling it a monopoly in the autient sense of that term, if the word were not now used in a bad or unfavourable sense, which pro bably dates from the time when real monopolies were granted by the crown, and were very injurious to the nation. Between a monopoly as it once existed, and a monopoly as it is now vulgarly un derstood, there is this difference—the former was only derived from a grant of the crown, and was often injurious to all persons except the patentee ; that which is now vulgarly called a monopoly is nothing more than the power which an individual or a set of individuals acquire, by means of capital and skill, of offering something to everybody cheaper and better than they had it before, and it is therefore an advantage both to the so-called mono polists and to everybody else. The abusive application of the term at present is found ed on the jealousy which people of small capital feel towards those who have large capital and carry on a successful business.
The case of a number of persons com bining to produce and sell, or to buy and sell, a thing, has been taken, as being one which is the most striking and oppressive kind of monopoly, in the vulgar sense of that term. An individual however may, in this sense, become a monopolist: as if a man should buy up all the tallow in Russia, and so make candles as dear as he pleased, or rather as dear as he could, for his price must be limited in a measure by people's ability to buy; or (to take a case which would appear a still greater act of monopoly, as being more sensibly felt) as if a man should buy all the corn in a country, and so make bread as dear as he could. Without discussing the question as to the advantages and disadvantages to a nation of this kind of monopoly, it is enough to put it upon those who disap prove of such wholesale buying, to say how far, and to what amount, they will allow a man to use his capital and exer cise his commercial skill ; for it is incum bent on those who would deprive a man of such liberty to say exactly how far such liberty should go.* Further, if such persons wish to be exact in their language, they should use another word than mo nopoly, which had once a particular meaning, as above explained, and signified a different thing from that which they call a monopoly. And if they will apply this word monopoly to a person or persons who, by industry and skill, and the judi cious employment of capital, make and sell or buy and sell much more of a thing than anybody else, they should consider whether—inasmuch as buying and selling are free to all, and as all people wish to buy as cheap as they can and as good as they can—they will apply this word in an invidious sense to any person or persons who can only command customers because the customers like to go to them, or cause the customers can get the thing no where else, owing to no other persons having provided themselves with the com modity for sale.
A new kind of monopoly, as it world be called according to the incorrect use of the term monopoly, is growing up in England. The Parliament em powers a number of individuals to make railroads from one place to ano ther, and for that purpose to take what land and other private property is required for the purposes of the rail way. The greater cheapness and con venience of railway carriage put an end to other modes of conveyance to a cer tain extent; but only because the railway travelling is cheaper and more convenient. Still it is possible that a railway company might raise prices so high, after they had driven all other competitors from the roads, as to deprive the public of some of the advantages of railway conveyance, though they might also deprive them selves of some profit. For it is not easy to revive other modes of conveyance after they have been disused, and nobody would like to venture on the attempt to revive them, because the enterprise might fail by the company again lowering their charges, simply to destroy competition, and then raising them again. Also, when a railway between two places is esta blished, the Parliament, as a general rule, would not empower another association to make another railroad between the same two places, and in the same or nearly the same line, and so they would in effect have given a kind of monopoly or exclusive privilege to the original company. These are not reasons against the granting of railway privileges, but they are reasons for the legislature regulating the conduct of railway companies by general rules, whenever the public interest shall require each regulation.
If the government of any country lay a tax on any imported article, such a tax creates what may be called a monopoly in favour of those who produce the article at home. Such tax " raises the price, deteriorates the commodity, and im poverishes artificers and others." It is not however a monopoly in the technical sense, because it is not a grant from the Crown, but is imposed by a law. It is a great deal worse however for the com munity than a real monopoly, for a real monopoly is illegal and may be got rid of by legal means.
That kind of monopoly or sole-selling or dealing which is given by the law of copyright, and by patents, is in effect a kind ofproperty created by law for the benefit of an author or inventor, and which he could not effectually acquire or secure without the aid of the law. It is not however a monopoly in any sense in which that term has ever been used. Whether it is profitable or injurious to the com munity is a question that concerns legis lation. [Corrnmyr.)