The reply to this is that, while the grocer is a natural person, the railroad company is an artificial person, and that, while the business of the former is purely private, that of the latter is quasi-public. The grocer must rely solely upon his personal rights and private resources, but the railroad company accepts from the State the franchises which enable it to do business. And yet, if the public had any assurance that the laws of trade would regulate both kinds of business alike, it is not likely that the State would distinguish between the two. They claim that their business is like other private business, and therefore they should be let alone; that competition can be relied upon to correct abuses; and where competition does actually exist they forget, and then claim that their business is not like other private business, and they should be allowed to make pools and combinations, because in their business competition is ruinous. Experience has certainly demonstrated that competition is only possible where combination is impossible. Where the same commodity is supplied by a large number of individuals, there is but little danger for the public from those who supply it, for an agreement among many cannot easily be effected; and even if an understanding could be reached, it would not long be satisfactory to all parties. Disagreements would arise which would end in the dissolution of the combination. Where, however, the number of competitors is small, agreements can be easily effected and successfully maintained.