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.
10
PAST II.
Since the Sherman Act was passed in 1890 the Supreme Court has had occasion to consider numerous forms of combination and monopolization and in each case the result has been in accord vrith the principle announced in the Standard Oil decision.
The earliest form of combination was that of an unincorporated association with a constitution and by-laws accomplishing unlawful restraints, condemned in the Addyston Pipe case (175 U. S., 211), Montague v. Loivry ri93 IT. S., 38), Trans-Missouri Freight Association (166 U. S., 290), and Joint Traffic Association cases (171 U. S., 505). Destruction of competition between manufacturers through the adoption of a common selling agency given the form of a State corporation, another method of combination, was held unlawful in the Continental Wall Paper case (212 U. S., 227). The holding company as a means of suppressing competition, whether between railroads or between industrial companies, received the same jiulgment in the Northern Securities case (supra), and in the Standard Oil case (221 U. S., 1). In Dr, Miles Medical Co, v. John D. Park d' Sons (220 U. S., 373) the court pronounced unlawful a scheme of so-called agency contracts under which a manufacturer attempted to establish uniform ])rices on all sales by wholesalers and retailers of proprietary medicines manufactured by liiui. In the case against the Tobacco Trtist (221 U. S., 106) it was held that the American Tobacco Co. and five other