Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/140

 EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT of accomplishing size, or is size not taken into account at all?" His conclusion is: "The line is drawn between combinations formed for the purpose of securing a monopoly by means of the union of existing competing interests, and monopoly which is the result of the growth or development of a single business, whether carried on by an individual or a cor poration. If, in the case of every business enterprise, conspicuous success in the com petitive struggle were to result only in illegal monopoly, the value of the competitive system would be impaired. "It is clear, however, that some monopolies must be tolerated unless all roads leading to monopoly are closed. If that cannot be done without interfering with the ordinary methods of competition, then the only course left is, not to prohibit altogether size which gives con trol of the market, but to restrict the uses which may be made of size and limit the com petitive power of size to perpetuate itself regardless of the interests of the general public. The success of a competitor, where competition is still active, is the gain of the purchasing or consuming public. But success which is so secure that the public may be dis regarded must be controlled. The competi tive system is maintained, not merely for the benefit of the successful competitor, but to serve the welfare of the whole community. The public is interested, not in the success of any one competitor, but in the. continuous and effective operation of free competition, active and potential. When such restraining influences are no longer effective, so that the interests of the successful competitor and those of the public no longer correspond, the public interests must be protected in some other way. It may then become necessary by means of legislation to control the power and regulate the conduct of all large corporations, no matter what their past history." MONOPOLIES (see Public Policy). MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. "The Power of Municipal Corporations to make •Special Assessments for Local Improvements," by Edson B. Valentine, Albany Law Journal (V. Ixviii, p. 325).

Ii9

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. "The Uniform Negotiable Instruments .Law," by John C. Richberg, Illinois Law Review (V. i, P- 305)NUISANCE. A Treatise on the Law Govern ing Nuisances with Particular Reference to its Application to Modern Conditions and Covering the Entire Law Relating to Public and Private Nuisances, including Statutory and Municipal Powers and Remedies, Legal and Equitable, by Joseph A. Joyce and Howard C. Joyce, Albany, N. Y. Matthew Bender & Com pany, 1906. This is a subject to which very few text books haye been exclusively devoted, none having appeared within the last fourteen years in America. The law of nuisances in a special sense develops with the progress of industry and invention and with the resulting changes in modes of living and social con ditions. It consists fundamentally in the application to each particular case of what is reasonable as between conflicting interests; and new social relations present novel situa tions, while changing standards and habits of thought make the test of reasonableness very elastic. Therefore a volume which brings up to date the authorities on the subject, as does Joyce on Nuisances, is timely and should be of value to the profession. The merit of the present work consists not in analysis and exposition but in the detail and fullness with which the decisions are com piled. The text in great part is merely a methodical and orderly statement of the decisions, with little criticism or comment. Thus it is stated broadly, section 83, on the authority of Commonwealth v. Howe, 13 Gray, 26, that a statute declaring that a build ing for the illegal sale of intoxicants is a com mon nuisance, which may be treated as such, is constitutional; and on the authority of Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S., 183, that the legislature may declare that nets set in certain waters are nuisances and may provide for their summary destruction; but there is no discussion of the interesting constitutional questions raised by those cases. The " underlying principle which governs the doctrine of nuisances and the remedy " is stated as follows: (section 25) " Every person