ght from
the wholesalers, and customers who bought from these dealers. Notices to
this effect were printed in the official organs of the American
Federation of Labor and the United Hatters of North America. To make the
feeling against the manufacturers more intense, statements were
published to the effect that they were practising an unfair, un-American
policy in discriminating against competent union men in favor of the
cheap unskilled foreign labor.

The counsel for the defence argued that no case could be set up under
the Sherman act, since the defendants were not engaged in interstate
commerce, implying that a combination of laborers was not a violation of
the act. The court held that an action could be maintained in this case
and that the combination as it existed was "in restraint of trade" in
the sense designated by the act of 1890. The significance of the
decision lies in the fact that the Supreme Court made no distinctions
between classes. Records of Congress show that efforts were made to
exempt, by legislation, organizations of farmers and laborers from the
operation of the act and that their efforts failed. Therefore the court
held that every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of
trade was illegal and cited a former decision (The United States vs.
Workingmen's Amalgamated Council) to show that the law interdicted
combinations of workingmen as well as capital.

The Sherman act was passed by Congress in 1890. It was entitled "An Act
to Protect Trade and Commerce against Unlawful Restraints and
Monopolies." Since its passage various cases falling under it have been
decided, but until the decisions in the Standard Oil Company and the
American Tobacco Company cases the extent and intent of this act have
not been understood.

In the Standard Oil case the question involved was this: Was the Sherman
act violated by the existence and conduct of this corporation, which
owned or controlled some eighty corporations originally in competition?
The control had been acquired for the purpose of monopolizing the sale
and distribution of petroleum products in the United States, and had
been acquired by various means of combination with the intent either by
fair or unfair methods "to drive others from the field and to exclude
them from their right to trade." The proof was that, to destroy
competitors, prices had been temporarily reduced in various localities,
spies had been used on competitors' business, bogu