We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
8
PART II.
the prohibition of the statute rests. The law prohibits as illegal all acts (1) which essentially obstruct the free flow of commerce between the States, or (2) restrict in that regard the liberty of a trader to engage in business, or (3) are unreasonably restrictive of competitive conditions.
The direct effect of the acts involved is the criterion by which it is to be determined in any case whether the combination is a restraint of trade within the intendment of the law. Therefore reason becomes the guide. Furthermore, if the necessary and direct effect of their acts is an obstruction to the free flow of commerce between the States, or an interference with the liberty of the trader to engage in interstate business, or an undue suppression of competition, defendants have violated the act no matter what primary intent or motive may have actuated them.
In every case we use the standard of reason for the jjurpose of determining whether or not an act or alleged restraint of commerce has brought about the injury from which the Sherman Antitrust Act is intended to guard the people. " In every case where it is claimed that an act or acts were in violation of the statute the rule of reason, in the light of the principles of law and the public policy which the act embodies, nuist be applied." (Mr. Chief Justice White in Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 221 U. S., 1, 66.)
If the acts complained of have caused the wrongs which the statute forbade, resoi't to reason is not