« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
TRUSTS AND INDUSTRIAL
LIBRARY OF THE
STATUTES AND DECISIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE,
AND TERRITORIAL LAW.
MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.
JAMES H. KYLE, Chairman. BOIES PENROSE.
ANDREW L. HARRIS. STEPHEN R. MALLORY.
ELLISON A. SMYTH. JOHN W. DANIEL.
John M. FARQUHAR. JOHN J. GARDNER.
EUGENE D. CONGER. WILLIAM LORIMER.
THOMAS W. PHILLIPS. L. F. LIVINGSTON.
CHARLES J. HARRIS. JOHN C. BELL.
M. D. RATCHFORD. THEOBALD OTJEN.
JOHN L. KENNEDY.
Twenty-seven of the States and Territories have passed statutes with the intention of defining monopoly more closely in order to meet modern conditions, and to prevent the formation of monopolies by fit regulations and penalties. Fifteen States have articles in their constitutions tending to the same end, though four of these have passed no laws on the subject. Besides these restrictions, the Congress passed the antitrust act of 1890, applying to interstate commerce, and in the inter. state-commerce act itself has likewise forbidden restraint of trade. The periods when the greatest activity in legislation is found are about 1890, soon after the report of the Bacon committee of Congress and the investigations of New York and Canada, and in the years 1897 and 1899, in connection with the late rapid movement toward consolidation in industries.
In this volume have been brought together the laws of Congress and of all the States and Territories on this subject that are now in force. In several of the States successive and amendatory acts have been passed in different years. The intention has been to print here all that have not been repealed.
Inasmuch as judicial interpretations of these statutes are as important as the acts themselves, it has seemed best to make a careful study of the cases decided. To that end diligent effort has been made to present a brief digest (not in the language of the court unless quoted) of all the decisions that have been made by courts of final resort in cases brought under these statutes. In some important instances the decisions of inferior courts have also been digested. It can hardly be expected that some cases have not escaped our search, but it is believed that the list is fairly complete.
So many of our States have relied upon the well-tested, time-honored principles of the common law to protect their citizens from the evils of monopoly, and so many courts have found these principles sufficient, even when special statutes were at hand, that it has seemed best to add to the list of cases