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.
254
PART xni.
conditions, clo not restrain, but ]3romote commerce.
•5f -Sf 4f -X 4{
(409) If, as we have already said, the combination of two or more mere terminal companies into a single system does not violate the prohibition of the statute against contracts and combinations in restraint of interstate commerce, it is because such a combination may be of the greatest public utility. But when, as here, the inherent conditions are such as to prohibit any other reasonable means of entering the city, the combination of every such facility under the exclusive ownership and control of less than all of the companies under compulsion to use them violates both the first and second sections of the act, in that it constitutes a contract or combination in restraint of commerce among the States and an attempt to monopolize commerce among the States which must pass through the gateway at St. Louis.
(2) Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co. v. United States (226 U. S., 20). Decided November 18, 1912. Opinion by Mr. Justice McKenna.
A price fixing trade agreement in the form of licenses under patents under w^liich 16 manufacturers controlling 85 per cent of the commerce in enameled ironware^ comljined to destroy competition, fixing prices and terms of sale of the ware and establishing penalties for viohition of the agreement. Tlie def(aidants urged as justification that the restraints alleged by the Government to be unlawful were ])r()]^('r restrictions lawfully imposed