ment, or combination, which is to be criminal, must contemplate the doing of some act that is unlawful, either as means or end. A mere agreement to do an act is only the initial stage of that act. With all possible deference to our two most august tribunals, it appears to be an error in legal reasoning, to hold that the mere agreement, the mere initial stage of an act, can constitute a crime, when the act itself, when consummated, will violate no legal right. And it is further submitted, as before stated, that the correct legal interpretation of the phrase an "act injurious to trade or commerce" is, that it means an act which violates some legal right in connection with trade or commerce. One further consideration may be added. The United States Supreme Court has laid down the following as one of the guiding principles in the interpretation of statutes:(a) "Even in construing the terms of a statute, courts must take notice of the history of legislation, and out of different possible constructions, select and apply the one that best comports with the genius of our institutions and is therefore most likely to have been the construction intended by the law-making power.' "The history of legislation," as set forth in the preceding pages, seems to make it clear, that attempts to control the contractual freedom of persons engaged in trade and commerce have been found unwise and pernicious. The "genius of our institutions" is overwhelmingly in favor of emancipation from all restrictions on complete contractual freedom-in private employments. In public employments-wise jurists and wise legislators are well agreed, that the individual citizen must have all needful protection at the hands of the State. But what are we to say of the latest attempt at State control of trade and commerce, in private employments? (a) Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 197, In a recent issue of our daily press we find the following statement :(a) "ANTI-TRUST AMENDMENT. "WASHINGTON, June 29.-The Republican members of the Judiciary Committee at a meeting this morning agreed upon the following form of an amendment to the Tariff Bill: 666 Every person, firm, or corporation who shall monopolize or engross, or attempt to monopolize or engross, or who shall combine or conspire with any other person, firm, or corporation to monopolize or engross the trade or commerce in any article, among the several States or with foreign nations, for the purpose of unduly enhancing the price of such article, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 or more than $10,000, and by imprisonment at hard labor not less than six months nor more than two years; and in case of a corporation found guilty of said offence the jury shall also ascertain and find what officers of the corporation caused or directed the corporation to commit such offence, and such officers, on being found guilty of causing or directing the corporation to commit the offence of which it is found guilty, shall be liable to the punishment aforesaid. It shall be a sufficient pleading, in the indictment, to describe the offence in the language of this law; and the fact that a manufacturer or dealer refuses to sell to the public in interstate or foreign trade otherwise than through special factors or agents shall be deemed prima facie evidence of monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the trade among the several States or with foreign nations. "The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this law; and it shall be the duty of the several District Attorneys of the United States in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney-General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by the way of a petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the (a) New York Sun, June 30, 1897. case, and pending such petition and before final decree the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. 999 What shall we have next in the course of the present anarchistic crusade against capital and property? And at such a time, where shall we find the two courts which have heretofore been the bulwarks on which we could always depend-for the protection of life, liberty, and property considered in connection with Interstate Commerce Act, 173. U. S. v. E. C. Knight Company, 174. effect of this decision upon, 176. held not inconsistent with Interstate Commerce Act, 176. definition of offences against public trade, 91. definition of conspiracy, 90. definition of crime, 147. BUYERS AND SELLERS, respective rights of, in matter of control of prices, 143. sellers are entitled to equal protection, 144. the "public interest," 145. in fact all are both buyers and sellers, 145. the "public interest" must be left to the parties, 145. duty of the State to afford equal rights and protection, 146. no distinction between sellers of labor and of merchandise, 146. effects of concentration of, 181. corporations the best agency to handle, 184. ownership of, always diverse, 184. increase of, proportionate to increase in wealth, 184. relations of, to labor, 185. necessity for security of, 186. COLONIAL LAW, entire absence at first of attempts to fix prices, 3. congressional action during revolution, 4. very soon repealed, 4. COMBINATIONS TO FIX PRICES made criminal conspiracies by early English Statutes, 43. essence of such crime the fixing prices contrary to law, 46. such statutes only one feature of attempts to control prices, etc., 82. statute a dead letter as to prices of merchandise, 46, 47, 49. |