vote of 31 to 28 agreed to refer the bill with all its amendments to the judiciary committee, with instructions to report within twenty days. ' On behalf of the judiciary committee, Senator Edmunds, on April 2d, reported the bill back to the Senate. This bill struck out all of the previous bills after the enacting clause, and substituted an entirely new measure. The members of the judiciary committee at this time were Senators Edmunds, Hoar, Ingalls, Wilson of Iowa, Evarts, Coke, Vest, George, and Pugh.3 Their new bill was now presented in the same form in which, after much debate, it was finally enacted into law. Its provisions were as follows: Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract, or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, 1 Congr. Rec., 1890, vol. 21, p. 2731. 'Ibid., p. 2901. We are indebted to the researches of Mr. Albert H. Walker for the discovery of the authors of this bill. Senator Edmunds wrote sections I (except 7 words), 2, 3, 5, 6, Senator George wrote section 4, Senator Hoar wrote section 7, Senator Ingalls section 8, and Senator Evarts the seven words of section I "in the form of trust or otherwise." or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act 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 way of 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 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. Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section 4 of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof. Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. 66 Sec. 8. That the word "person" or persons" wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. On April 8th the Senate, as in committee of the whole, proceeded to the consideration of the bill.' After little debate, during which Senator Sherman stated his approval of the present form of the bill, it was agreed to, and reported to the Senate. A number of amendments were now offered, all of which, however, were defeated. Senator Reagan proposed to amend section 7 by permitting persons to sue, not only in federal courts, but also "in any state court of competent jurisdiction.' But it was pointed out by a number of speakers that Congress had no power to enable a state court to award damages, and the amend'Ibid., p. 3146. 1Cong. Rec., 1890, vol. 21, p. 3145. ment was defeated by a vote of 36 to 13.' Senator George then offered an amendment to section 7, permitting any number of persons injured by the same combination to join in bringing a suit for damages, and providing that the court should find a separate judgment for each complainant, according to the circumstances, but it was rejected without debate. Senator Reagan next offered an amendment to section 3, providing "that each day's violation of any of the provisions of this act shall be held to be a separate offense," but this also was immediately rejected." At this point Senator Kenna introduced a question of interest. He asked of Senator Edmunds the exact meaning of monopoly, whether it applied to a person, who by means of superior skill, received all the orders in any industry. To this Senator Edmunds replied in the negative, and Senator Hoar further gave a definition of monopoly: "It is the sole engrossing to a man's self by means which prevent other men from engaging in fair competition with him." Senator Gray then proposed to strike out of section 2 the words "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," but this was quickly rejected.3 The vote on the bill as a whole was then taken, and it was passed by 52 yeas to I nay. The single nay was recorded by Senator Blodgett, of New Jersey, who took no part in the debate and did not explain his vote. Thereupon, the title of the bill was amended so as to read: "A bill to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.' After passing the Senate, the Sherman bill reached the House on April 11, 1890, and was at once referred to the judiciary committee. This, however, was not the first introduction of the House to the trust question. In 1888, at least 12 bills against trusts were proposed, but were never reported from the committees to which they were assigned. At this time, also was undertaken the House investigation, conducted by the committee on manufactures. Consequently, this body was fairly familiar with the various aspects of the problem. On April 25th, the bill was favorably reported from the committee,' and on May 1st it was opened to debate. Mr. Culberson of Texas, in introducing the bill,' said he thought it could be quickly disposed of, as it was far less important than the other two bills on which the judiciary committee were to report. The measures to which he referred were bills concerning copyrights and bankruptcy. Mr. Bland interposed the objection that the bill was of the greatest importance, and should be fully discussed; since in its present form it was worthless, and in need of amendments to carry out its purpose. Thereupon, Mr. Culberson undertook to explain and defend the measure. In regard to section 1, he said: 3 "Now, just what contracts, what combinations in the form of trusts, or what conspiracies, will be in restraint of the trade or commerce mentioned in the bill, will not be known until the courts have construed, and interpreted this question." But he cited certain examples, which he considered to be the restraints covered by the bill. One was the system of discounts given to retailers who handled only the goods of a certain manufacturer at stated prices, on penalty of losing the discount if they broke the agreement. This, it will be remembered, was the method practiced by the Whiskey Trust to retain 1 Congr. Rec., 1890, vol. 21, p. 3587. "Ibid., p. 4088. |