Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for the United States
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office. Office of the Public Printer
Volume:
Brief for the United States
Leaf #:
000312
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
November 08, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

300 PART XIV. rule for trade and commerce is an economic question which this court need not consider or determine. Moreover, acts wliich the statute prohibits can not be removed from the control of its prohibitions by a finding that they are reasonalile (Chief Justice White in the Tobacco case, 221 U. S., 179). Mr. Justice Peckham said in the Addyston case (175 U. S., 211, 234) : If the necessary, direct and immediate effect of the contract be to violate an act of Congress and also to restrain and regulate interstate commerce, it is manifestly immaterial whether the design to so regulate was or was not in existence Avhen the contract was entered into. In such case the design does not constitute the material thing. The fact of a direct and substantial regulation is the important part of the contract, and, that regulation existing, it is unimportant that it was not designed. In the National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas (197 U. S., 115, 129) Mr. Justice McKenna said that under the Sherman act competition, not combination, must be the law of trade. He continued: ^^If there is evil in this, it is accepted as less than that which may result from the unification of interests and the power such unification gives." hi tlie Cotton case (226 U. S., 525, 54e3) after holding that the conspiracy burdened commerce and inflicted upon the pu])]ic the injuries which the