ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

"I arrive at the conclusion, therefore, that the objects sought and the means used by the defendants did not exceed the limits of allowable trade competition, and I know of no restriction imposed by law on competition by one trader with another, with the sole object of benefiting himself.

"I consider that a different case would have arisen if the evidence had shown that the object of the defendants was a malicious one, namely, to injure the plaintiffs whether they, the defendants, should be benefited or not. This is a question on which it is unnecessary to express an opinion, as it appears to be clear that the defendants had no malicious or sinister intent as against the plaintiffs, and that the sole motive of their conduct was to secure certain advantages for themselves.

"It only remains for me to refer to the argument that an act which might be lawful for one to do becomes criminal or the subject of civil action by any. one injured by it, if done by several combining together. On this point I think the law is accurately stated by Sir William Erle, in his treatise on the law relating to trades unions. The principle he lays down is equally applicable to combinations other than those of trades unions. He says (p. 23):

"As to combination, each person has a right to choose whether he will labor or not, and also to choose the terms on which he will consent to labor, if labor be his choice. The power of choice in respect of labor and terms which one person may exercise and declare singly, many, after consultation, may exercise jointly, and they may make a simultaneous declaration of their choice and may lawfully act thereon for the immediate purpose of obtaining the required terms, but they can not create any mutual obligation having the legal effect of binding each other not to work or not to employ unless upon terms allowed by the combination.'

"In considering the question, however, of what was the motive of the combination, whether it was for the purpose of injuring others, and merely in order to benefit those combining, the fact of several agreeing to a common course of action may be important. There are some forms of injuries which can only be effected by the combination of many. Thus, if several persons agree not to deal at all with a particular individual, as this could not, under ordinary circumstances, benefit the persons so agreeing, it might well lead to the conclusion that their real object was to injure the individual. But it appears to me that, in the present case, there is nothing indicating an intention to injure the plaintiffs, except in so far as such injury would be the result of the defendants obtaining for themselves the benefits of the carrying trade by giving better terms to customers than their rivals, the plaintiffs, were willing to offer.

"For these reasons I think that the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed."

Order of Lord Coleridge, C. J., and order of the court of appeals affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs. (Lords' journals, 18th December, 1891.) Solicitors for appellants: Gellatly & Warton.

Solicitors for respondents: Freshfields & Williams.

The committee thereupon went into executive session, and after the consideration of matters in executive session, adjourned until Monday, February 12, 1912, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

29657-VOL 2-12- -68

[blocks in formation]

A B C of the Sherman law, Everybody's Magazine, January, 1912..........
Adair, Charles R., Charleston, III.:

1953

Monopoly, meaning of....

1808

Rex v. Rusby (Peake's Add. N. P. C., 189), part of charge to jury.

1807

Statement of.

1806

Addyston pipe case (175 U. S., 211).

779, 969, 1574, 1822

Aldrich, Hon. Nelson G., plan of..

608

American democracy and corporate reform, by Robert R. Reed, in Atlantic

Monthly, January, 1909......

2289

[blocks in formation]

American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., letters to Senator Clapp.

American Mining Congress..

American Steel & Wire Co..

American Tobacco Co., petition of Antitrust League..

Argument in support of brief....

and objections of independent companies.

Decree in case of United States against...

Decree, reference to.....

Dissenting opinion of Judge Harlan.

2034

2016

497, 498

2372

724

145

340

315

290

1215

691

Number of firms absorbed by.

1203

[blocks in formation]

United States v. American Tobacco Co., opinion of United States Supreme
Court..

[blocks in formation]

Extracts from Postmaster General's "Instructions to bidders".

247

[blocks in formation]

A B C of the Sherman law, Everybody's Magazine, January, 1912...
Adair, Charles R., Charleston, III.:

1953

Monopoly, meaning of...

1808

Rex v. Rusby (Peake's Add. N. P. C., 189), part of charge to jury.
Statement of..

1807

1806

Addyston pipe case (175 U. S., 211).

779, 969, 1574, 1822

Aldrich, Hon. Nelson G., plan of..

608

American democracy and corporate reform, by Robert R. Reed, in Atlantic

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

We-don't-patronize lists.

Work of organizers..

American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., letters to Senator Clapp..

American Mining Congress..

American Steel & Wire Co...

American Tobacco Co., petition of Antitrust League..

Decree in case of United States against..

Decree, reference to...

Dissenting opinion of Judge Harlan.

2034

2016

497, 498

2372

724

145

340

315

290

1215

691

Number of firms absorbed by.

1203

[blocks in formation]

United States v. American Tobacco Co., opinion of United States Supreme
Court...

[blocks in formation]
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »