"Unless the agreement involves an absorption of the entire traffic, it is not objectionable to the statute [of 1890],. Competition is not stifled by such an agreement, and other dealers would soon force the parties to the agreement to sell at the market price, or a reasonable price, at least."

Unless the agreement involves an absorption of the entire traffic in lumber, and is entered into for the purpose of obtaining the entire control of it with the object of extortion, it is not objectionable to the statute, in my opinion

A modem court that wished to remain faithful to this theory would review naked price fixing agreements on a case-by-case basis, voiding only those that produced "unreasonable" prices

Eau Claire Free Press, January 21, 28, February 18, March 24, August 18, 1892. "An agreement between a number of dealers and manufacturers to raise prices, unless they practically control the entire commodity, cannot operate as a restraint upon trade, nor does it tend to injuriously affect the public," wrote the federal district judge in the Nelson case.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus to secure release from the custody of the marshal, by whom he was held awaiting an order for the removal of Greene to Massachusetts to answer to the indictment in the Greenhut case. Prisoner discharged.

Other courts held that there must be control over the entire commodity to constitute restraint of trade.

The federal act of 1890 denouncing monopolies and contracts in restraint of interstate commerce (26 US Stat. at L. p. 209, ch. 647) has been held to belong to the class to which the exception applies

—upholding an agreement among midwestern lumber dealers to raise prices above the prevailing market because there was no allegation as to market effect and because the judge believed that no price-fixing agreement could be successful unless the parties controlled all of the commodity

While it may be true that some of the other dealers might attempt to induce purchasers to be governed by the price fixed in their locality by the parties to the agreement, and try to keep up prices, yet competition in the commodity would soon bring the price down, unless there were fraudulent or coercive means resorted to for the purpose of restraining other dealers

Indeed, some early decisions under the Sherman Act refused to void cartels that did not seek to limit the output of strangers to the agreement.

[CITATION] Principles of antitrust

[BOOK] Wisconsin and the Shaping of American Law