Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

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.

PAUT xvr. 319 It is m.-niifcst tli;i1 the cimi-t did n<»t rrstrirt its de('isi(ni to .1 holding tli.-il ;i cnijKd'.-it ioii whose existence is due to a (MHiihiiial i<»ii «d' eninj jet i n^ eompaiiics is an nidawt'id e(Miil)iiiati<)ii. It held that any eoijxn'at i(ni enines within the prohibitions of thv act which has acipiired monojxdistic power h7 methods iiujoiisistciit with a riornial and nsnal (h'velo])in('nt of bnsinoss. If a (!orj)oration has proceeded to buy out all its conipetitoi-s — not as an incident to orderly growth — but in order to obtain A monopoly of the })usiness it has become amena])Ie to the law, although in so doing it has exercised the powTr to acquire and own property. (Shawnee Corh press Co. case, 209 U. S., 423.) The question in any case must be wliether the direct effect of the acts involved has brought about the evils which it is the purpose of the statute to prevent, namely, undue suppression of competition and monopoly or undue obstruction of the natural coui^e of trade. The form taken to accom])lish the unlawful result becomes immaterial. Although the opinin in the Tobacco case first authoritatively announced the principles just stated, they had been vigorously advocated by eminent legal waiters prior to that time. See Edd}' on Combinations, sec. 617, 612 et seq. Noyes on Intercorporate Relations, sec. 306, 319, 354.