ew persons got up a trust--perhaps importers,
for the very purpose of breaking down the American manufacturer--
and made the article to a very small extent, all honest manufacturers
would be deprived of their protection.

Mr. Sherman's bill found little favor with the Senate. It
was referred to the Judiciary Committee of which I was then
a member. I drew as an amendment the present bill which I
presented to the Committee. There was a good deal of opposition
to it in the Committee. Nearly every member had a plan of
his own. But at last the Committee came to my view and reported
the law of 1890. The House disagreed to our bill and the
matter went to a Conference Committee, of which Mr. Edmunds,
the Chairman of the Committee, and I, as the member of the
Committee who was the author of the bill, were members. The
House finally came to our view.

It was expected that the Court, in administering that law,
would confine its operation to cases which are contrary to the
policy of the law, treating the words "agreements in restraint
of trade," as having a technical meaning, such as they are
supposed to have in England. The Supreme Court of the United
States went in this particular farther than was expected.
In one case it held that "the bill comprehended every scheme
that might be devised to restrain trade or commerce among
the several States or with foreign nations." From this opinion
several of the Court, including Mr. Justice Gray, dissented.
It has not been carried to its full extent since, and I think
will never be held to prohibit the lawful and harmless combinations
which have been permitted in this country and in England without
complaint, like contracts of partnership which are usually
considered harmless. We thought it was best to use this general
phrase which, as we thought, had an accepted and well-known
meaning in the English law, and then after it had been construed
by the Court, and a body of decisions had grown up under
the law, Congress would be able to make such further amendments
as might be found by experience necessary.

The statute has worked very well indeed, although the Court
by one majority and against the very earnest and emphatic
dissent of some of its greatest lawyers, declined to give
a technical meaning to the phrase, "in restraint of trade."
But the operation of the statute has been healthy. The Attorney-
General has recently given an account of suits in equity by
which he had dest