Page:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920, 123.jpg

Rh the worst consequences of price convulsions are the vicious remedies proposed."

There is a preponderance of further authority upon the subject, from the writings of economists, but we will turn now to some of the determinative decisions of the Supreme Court upon this phase of our inquiry.

Of course, as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court, where it is dealing with monopolistic enterprises, the rules are far different from those "concerning the ascertainment of value under contracts of sale," as in the Omaha case. But, even in such cases, the rules stated have been clearly applied, and there is no difference between economic and judicial opinion.

The great distinction rests on the legal principle that the law always requires the best evidence possible in every case. The best evidence of price is market price,—the price fixed by the joint inquiry and judgment of the world through its free competitive forces. Where that result is thus reached, no other evidence is admissable on the point. On the other hand the best evidence of excessive price is price fixed by monopoly, by private greed. So that it follows inevitably, in those instances where there can be no fair competition, where monopolistic condition is paramount, the State must assume control,—not that this is desirable, nor can ever be satisfactory, but that it is absolutely necessary to prevent a part of the taxing power being exercised by individuals,—and thus establishing "taxation without representation."

Referring again to the Knoxville Case, Mr. Justice Moody there said: "Before coming to the question of profit at all, the Company is entitled to earn a