legally, the question of when it is to be done becomes merely one of
expediency, one of circumstance, but not one that admits of a general
decision.

A writer of great (and deservedly great) reputation has said so much
on this subject, and treated it in a way that both reason and experience
prove to be wrong, that it is become indispensably necessary to argue
the point. {123} Monopoly, regrating, and forestalling, which two last
are only particular modes of monopolizing, have been considered as
chimeras, as imaginary practices that have never existed, and that
cannot possibly exist. They have been likewise assimilated to
witchcraft, an ideal belief, arising in the times of ignorance. It is now
become the creed of legislators and ministers, that trade should be left
to regulate itself, that monopoly cannot exist.

With all the respect justly due to the learned writer who advanced so
bold an opinion, it may be asked, since many instances occur, both in
sacred and profane history, in ancient times, and in our own days, of
provisions, on particular occasions, selling at one hundred times their
natural price, (and, every price above the natural one, is called a
monopoly price,) how can it be asserted that they may not become an
object of monopoly in a more general way, though not at so exorbitant
a price?

How, it may be asked, can this thing, that has so often occurred in an
extreme degree, a thing that is allowed to be possible, be compared
with the miraculous effect of witchcraft, of the existence of which
there does not appear to be one authentic record? The one, at all
events, a natural, and the other, a supernatural effect. How are those to
be admitted in fair comparison?