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.
I'AICI IT.
11
('()in|);iiii('s (>i'^;uii/('(l inidcr the I;i\vs of New Jersey were iml.MwI'iil (m mihiiiatioiis, hccnusc llicy liad ac(|iiir('(l in( ni(>])()listic powci* hy mctliods incoTisistciit witli a iiatm-al and TKU'iiial expansion of husijiess. In rm'fcd States y. Tcrniina/ I* ait road Assariftf ion ct at. (224 U. S., 383) it was decided tliat a terminal association of railroads is an illegal restraint so lonc^ as it does not act as the impartial agent of every line which, owing to g(M^grapliic conditions, is nnder compulsion to use its instrumentalities.
A combination to suppress competition, given the form of licenses under patents, was held unlawful in the so-called Bath tub Trust " case, regardless of an alleged intent, assumed by the court to be present, to improve the quality of the ware {Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 226 U. S., 20).
Destruction of competition between railroads accomplished by means of one bu}dng a controlling stock interest in the other received the condemnation of the court in the Union Pacific case, although the power to suppress competition had not been exercised {United States v. Union Pacific Bail road Co., 226 U. S., 61).
In the Anthracite Coal case {United States v. Beading Company, 226 U. S., 324), a series of identical contracts between railroads and coal companies for the marketing of coal, appearing on their face to be normal and usual contracts, but in fact arrived at by concerted action in order to suppress