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 of commodity, and if they should succeed in selling such article very extensively, and almost solely, such indi viduals in popular language would be said to have a monopoly. Noe', as these individuals have no tulvantages given them by the Law over other persons, 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 auy legal privilege. There would, however, be no objection to calling it a monopoly in the ancient sense of that term, if the word were not now used in a bad or unfavourable sense, which probably dates from the time when real monopolies were granted by the were very injurious to the nation. Between a monopoly as it once existed, rind a monopoly as it is now vulgarly understood, 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 amp 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 monopolists and to everybody else.
The case of a number of persons combining to produce and sell, or to buy and sell, a thing, hoe been taken, as being ono which is the most striking and oppressive kind of monopoly, in the vulgar sense of term. An individual, however, any, in this sense, become a monopolist : as if a 1111111 should buy up all the tallow in Russia, and so make candles as dear as he pleased ; or (to take a case which would appear a still greater act of monopoly, an being more sensibly felt), as if a man should buy all the corn in a country, and ao make bread as dear as he plett:ed. Without discussing time question as to the
advantages and disadvantages to a nation of this kind of monopoly, it is enough to put it upon those who disapprove of such wholesale buying, to say how far, mud to what amount, they will allow a man to use his capital and exercise his commercial skill ; for it is incumbent 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 monopoly, 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 industiy and skill, and the judicious 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 because the customers can get the thing nowhere else, owing to no other persons having provided themselves with the commodity for sale.
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 of property 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. Is is not, however, a monopoly in any sense in which that term has ever been used. Whether it is profitable or injurious to the community it a question that concerns legislation.