—would lead to the conclusion that power to fix prices was necessary for proof of a price-fixing conspiracy under § 1.

Even in states without a legislative declaration of policy the common law restraints on monopolies are still in force.

—a conspiracy among coal dealers to maintain a fixed price for coal in Providence was held to be a crime at common law, coal being an article of price necessity.

"The ten-dency at the present time is to hold corporations responsible, criminally as well as civilly, for all acts committed by their agents, having any relation to the business of the corporation."

—the indictment charged, in substance, that the five defendants did- "combine, confederate, and conspire together by divers unlawful and fraudulent devices, contrivances, and acts, unlawfully to regulate the price at which coal should be sold in the said city of Providence,*** which said coal was then and there an article of prime necessity to the public and

This was an indictment under a statute which purported to be declaratory of the common law, but which actually was non-technical in its wording and had been interpreted more broadly.

—we said that the law relative to the common-law offense of engrossing, although dormant in this state, might, because of the statute making offenses at common law subject to prosecution and punishment, be applied.

There are three schools of thought as to the legal significance of the word or idea of "monopoly" today:(i) Size sufficient to control the market (economic monopoly) may be illegal as such, even in the absence of exclusionary tactics.

—a conspiracy among coal dealers to fix prices was regarded as punishable as the common law crime of "engrossing"-an obviously incorrect characterization.

Coke 125. said to be a monopoly when one person alone buys up the whole of one kind of a commodity fixing a price at his own pleasure. "