IN the opinion of many the laissez faire doctrine, even with the influence of the common law restraining it, has worked out in a marked tendency toward monopoly. The same group also believes that whatever the merits private monopoly may possess, when thoroughly organized as an agent of production, the state can not rely upon the self- interest of the owners to supply needs or perform the services demanded by the community in a way that will be the most advantageous for the common welfare. The attempts to adjust industrial difficulties by appeal to the courts and the common law are hampered by the very inequality of the parties to the suit. The legal talent employed by the owners of a monopoly, for instance, is such as to give a marked advantage in the very opening of the case, while the long delays wear out the patience and the funds of the smaller litigant. Moreover, in those industries into which the monopoly element has not yet entered and in which the producers compete with each other, free competition turns out to be highly wasteful and at times destructive of wealth, first in the unnecessary duplication of plants and second in the continuous elimination of the relatively more poorly equipped concerns from the field of production. The strife for business in a laissez faire society soon drives the contestants to fraud and chicanery.