Page:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920, 101.jpg

Rh own free discretion in the course of free competition is that of United States vs. Colgate, for not only is there cited therein an ample collection of authorities, including decisions of the Supreme Court, but the case itself was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court. , in the lower Court, says: "* * * how far one may control and dispose of his own property; that is to say, whether there is any limitation thereon if he proceeds in respect thereto in a lawful and bona fide manner.  That he may not do so fraudulently, collusively, and in unlawful combination with others, may be conceded.  * * *  But it by no means follows that, being a manufacturer of a given article, he may not, without incurring any criminal liability, refuse absolutely to sell the same at any price, or to sell at a named sum to a customer.  * * *  Authorities to sustain this view might be cited almost without number."  After citing many cases, he continues: "The indictment should set forth such a state of facts as to make it clear that a manufacturer, engaged in what was believed to be the lawful conduct of his business, has violated some known law, before it is haled into Court to answer the charge of the commission of a crime. In the instant case, the Court's conclusion is that the averments of the indictment, * * *  read in the light of the defendant's inalienable right to deal lawfully with his own property, the handling, trading in, and disposing of which is made the subject of this indictment, fail to charge any offense, either in restraint of trade and commerce, under the Sherman Act, or any other law of the United States."