In framing the law the Judiciary Committee believed that the well-known principles guid ing the courts in the application and construc tion of statutes would lead them to give the words of the act a beneficial and remedial rather than an injurious and technical interpre tation, one hurtful to any honest trade, as well as out of harmony with the beneficent spirit and policy of the whole act. Nearly 11 years after the passage of the act (1911), Judge Ed munds wrote: °That belief has now, on the whole, been realized. It is believed that no case founded on the act has been finally de cided by the courts adversely to the contracts or conduct of parties accused in which such contracts or conduct did not offend against both the letter and the spirit of the act, as well as against the sound public policy under lying both the provisions of the Constitu tion and the act of Congress touching the subject.° Chief Provisions of the Sherman Law.— The act is divided into eight sections, of which the first and seventh practically embody the spirit of the entire act.
Section 1 recites: °Every contract, com bination in the form of trust or otherwise, or i conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on con viction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment not ex ceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." Section 7 recites: °Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of any thing forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act may sue therefor in any Circuit Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attor ney's fee." In view of notable actions instituted by the Federal government it should be noted in con nection with the foregoing that section 2 makes it a misdemeanor, punishable as in section 1, for any person to monopolize or combine or conspire to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations; and that section 8 classes cor porations and associations with persons wherever the words or occur in the act.
Notable Prosecutions Under the Sherman Law.—At the close of 1912 the United States
government had instituted suits against about 125 corporations for violations of the Sherman law. In a special message to Congress on the trust question, 5 Dec. 1911, President Taft pre sented a list of 99 suits that had been brought up to 1 Nov. 1911. By administrations these were divided as follows: President Harrison (1889-93) seven; President Cleveland (1893 97) eight; President McKinley (1897-1901) three; President Roosevelt (1901-09) 44; Presi dent Taft (1909-11) 37; President Wilson (1913-16) 18. The most notable of these cases in which decisions were rendered favorable to the government were, briefly stated, as fol lows: Northern Securities Company: suit brought to restrain the defendant from acquiring in any manner the control of the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific Railway companies, 10 March 1902; petition of the government upheld in Circuit Court, 9 April 1903; decision af firmed by United States Supreme Court, 14 March 1904.
Swift and Company, Chicago: suit brought to restrain alleged beef trust from suppressing competition and maintaining a monopoly in the purchase of livestock and the sale of dressed meats; Circuit Court granted a perpetual in junction, 26 May 1903; United States Supreme Court affirmed it, 30 Jan. 1905.
Armour and Company and others, Chicago: indictments found against various meat-packing companies and individuals, 1 July 1905; all ob jections decided in favor of the government except certain pleas of immunity based on in formation given the government; court sus tained pleas so far as individual defendants were concerned, but overruled them with re spect to the corporations.
Standard Oil Company of New Jersey: suit to dissolve illegal combination instituted 16 Nov. 1906; decree favoring the government filed 20 Nov. 1909; United States Supreme Court affirmedjudgment, 15 May 1911.
American Tobacco Company: petition to dissolve illegal combination filed 10 July 1907; decision favoring the government except as to certain foreign corporations rendered 7 Nov. 1908; both sides appealed; United States Su preme Court sustained the government on all points and ordered dissolution, 29 May 1911.
Du Pont de Nemours Company (Powder Trust) : petition for dissolution of combination filed 30 July 1907; court ordered dissolution, 21 June 1911.
American Sugar Refining Company: indict ment found, 1 July 1909; United States Su preme Court decided defendant's plea of the statute of limitations in favor of the govern ment.