376 Meyer—Early Railroad Legislation in Wisconsin. 
grounds of restraint of trade, ultra vires , monopoly, restricting 
competition, bad public policy, and so on. Along these lines I 
wish to introduce a few citations. A series of decisions 1 estab¬ 
lishes the doctrine, that a contract in restraint of trade, or one 
having for its object the prevention of competition, is not 
necessarily void; and that a contract obviating ruinous compe¬ 
tition and, though raising prices, yet not raising them un¬ 
reasonably nor tending to create a monopoly, may be valid. 2 
" While, without doubt, contracts which.have a direct tendency 
to prevent a healthy competition, are detrimental to the public 
and consequently against public policy, it is equally free from 
doubt that when such contracts prevent an unhealthy competi¬ 
tion, and yet furnish the public with adequate facilities at fixed 
and reasonable rates, they are beneficial and in accord with 
sound principles of public policy. For the lessons of experience, 
as well as the deductions of reason, amply demonstrate that the 
public interest is not subserved by competition which reduces 
the rate of transportation below the standard of fair compen¬ 
sation; and the theory which formerly obtained, that the public 
is benefited by unrestricted competition between railroads, has 
been so emphatically disproved by the results which have 
generally followed its adoption in practice, that the hope of any 
permanent relief from excessive rates through competition of a 
parallel or rival road may as a rule, be justly characterized as 
illusory and fallacious. ” 3 
“I see nothing in the alleged injury to the public arising 
from the prevention of competition. . . . It is a mistaken 
notion that the public is benefited by putting two railway com¬ 
panies against each other till one is ruined, the result being at 
last to raise fares to the highest possible standard. ” 4 
“ It should also be observed that competition among railroad 
companies has not the same safe-guards as competition in trade. 
1 Hirschl. 
2 A railroad being in its very nature a monopoly, it is difficult to see the 
force of the latter limitation, unless accompanied by a qualifying phrase. 
3 Manchester & Lowell R. R. vs. Concord R. R., 20 Atl. Rep., 385; 
Supreme Court of N. H., March 14, 1890; quoted in Hirschl. 
4 Vice-Chancellor Wood; quoted, Ibid., p. 6. 
