—since § 1 of the Act brands as illegal the character of the restraint not the amount of commerce affected.

—in speaking of the Sherman Antitrust Act (26 Stat. 209), that the theory of injury to the public lies at the bottom of the statutes and is directed against things which tend to deprive the public of the advantages which flow from free competition.

CCA 423, it was held by this court that a conspiracy in restraint of a single interstate shipment was within the section.

The personal conduct and administration of the judge in the discharge of his separate functions is not within the meaning of this section; hence, state statutes and state constitutions forbidding judges in charging juries to express an opinion upon the facts are not binding on the federal courts.

Besides this, however, there is an obiter dictum in another case and a decision with regard to a State antitrust statute which supports the inference that farmers' combinations are not exempted.

If, as the Jones case indicates, a rather strong nationalistic view is to be taken, then it is not a far cry from a holding that an interference with a single shipment in interstate commerce is such a restraint of trade as to constitute a violation of the Anti-Trust Act

State Practice Not Followed:-Federal practice in regard to form, etc., of instructions does not follow state practice.

February 7, 1910, all defendants plead guilty and fines aggregating $57,000 were imposed and collected.