is no difference in principle in contracts in restraint of trade and trusts. The difference is in extent and methods"l 2 The Statutes of Nebraska have gone even further than any of the above in defining trusts. For the Federal Court has held that a fair interpretation of the definition contained in chapter 91a of the Compiled Statutes, 1903, would construe to be a trust every contract or agreement affecting prices in any manner, whether it be to raise or lower them. In all these definitions, whether by economist, publicist, court or statute the element of monopoly, with its power and tendency to regulate prices, stands out prominently. But though the trust and combination method of obtaining this is modern and more extensive the idea of monopoly is not modern. One of the Proverbs of Israel reads: "He that withholdeth corn, the people shall curse him; but 3 blessing shall be upon the head of him that selleth it. Le Rossignol writes of "royal monopolies of brick and syenite and papyrus in Egypt, of royal monopolies of wheat and purple among the Phoenicians, of state monopolies of lead mines and of banking among the Greeks, of various 4 monopolies in Rome, notably the monopoly of salt." Mahaffy 1. State v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1. 2. 3. 4. Lo Rossignol, Monopolies Past and Present, pp. 24, 25. in his volume on "Social Life in Greece" mentions monopolies consummated by the fishmongers of Athens to preserve high 1 prices in the retail of fish. An edict of the Emperor Zeno, issued to the Praetorian Prefect of Constantinople, A.D. 483, proves the presence of monopolies there at that time. For in that edict we read the following: "We command that no one may presume to exercise a monopoly of any kind of clothing or of fish, or of any other thing serving for food, or for any other use, whatever its nature may be, either of his own authority, or under a rescript of an emperor already procured, or that may hereafter be procured, or under a rescript signed by Our Majesty; nor may any persons combine or agree in unlawful meetings, that different kinds of merchandise may not be sold at less price than "2 they may have agreed upon among themselves. The English patents of monopoly are notorious. Elizabeth, in particular, during her reign granted these patents with a lavish hand, and the patentees were clothed with such arbitrary powers that they were able to oppress the people at pleasure. Hume thus describes this feature of her administration: "The active reign of Elizabeth had enabled many persons to distinguish themselves in civil and 1. Ch. X, p. 309. 2. Code IV, 59. The above translation of this edict is by A. H. Marsh, Q. C., and first appeared in 8 Canadian Law Times, pp.299,300. Sce same also in 23 Am. Tew Review, 261. |