—the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, after referring to the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, thus interpreted the prior decisions of this court in the Trans-Missouri, the Joint Traffic and the Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. cases: "In the exercise of this right, Congress has seen fit to prohibit all contracts in restraint of trade. It has not left to the courts …

—"the court held illegal an exclusive sales agency which had been formed to market about 30% of the coal and about 45% of the coke which was produced in the Kanawha district of West Virginia. The coal of the combine was less than 1% of that sold in the same markets in which it competed and the coke sold met'severe'competition in all markets. The sales agency was …

SAME-ANTI-TRUST LAW.-It is the declared policy of congress to promote individual competition in relation to interstate commerce, and to prevent combinations which restrain such competition between their members; and it is no defense to an action to dissolve such a• Affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

The formation of a monopoly for the purpose of suppressing trade or commerce is unlawful, both at common law

—illustrates how great has been the change in attitude toward minority combinations: The mere fact that the parties to an agreement eliminate competition between themselves is not enough to condemn it.

—may fall short of complete control of a trade or business, and does not await the consolidation of many small combinations into the huge'trust'which shall control the production and sale of a commodity

"Congress has seen fit to prohibit all contracts in restraint of trade. It has not left to the courts the consideration of the question whether such restraint is reasonable or unreasonable, or whether the contract would have been illegal at the common law or not. The courts are not concerned with the policy of such a law. It is not for them to inquire whether it be true... that this is …

It may have been to aid and further commerce rather than to restrain it; but if in point of law the effect or the tendency of the combination is to restrain trade or commerce the combination is unlawful, and the motive behind it, however beneficent, does not alter that fact in the [304] slightest degree.

"Further divergence between the Mogul decision and the decisions of our courts, is shown by the following extract from the opinion of the Court of Appeals: 71" But I find it impossible myself to acquiesce in the view that the English law places any such restrictions on the com-O Supra, note 65.'

In the other cases and also in cases decided by the Circuit Court and Court of Appeals, the combinations had been formed by corporations or individuals engaged in business independently of one another and they had agreed to regulate their prices or mode of carrying on their business by the rules of the combination.

[CITATION] Olmstead v. United States

[CITATION] Thurman Arnold's International Antitrust Legacy

[PDF] October Term, 1932.

[BOOK] The rule of reason in antitrust law: American, German and common market laws …

[CITATION] A Preservation Safe Harbor in e-Discovery