Page:Earle, Does Price Fixing Destroy Liberty, 1920, 102.jpg

102 The Supreme Court quotes largely from this opinion. It says: "The retailer, after buying, could, if he chose, give away his purchase, or sell it at any price he saw fit; * * *  his course in these respects being affected only by the fact that he might by his action incur the displeasure of the manufacturer," etc. Indeed, this language is quoted twice in the opinion by the Supreme Court, which then says: "The purpose of the Sherman Act is to prohibit monopolies, contracts and combinations which probably would unduly interfere with the free exercise of their rights by those engaged, or who wish to engage, in trade and commerce—in a word, to preserve the right of freedom to trade. In the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Act does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstance under which he will refuse to sell."  The Colgate case was one where a dealer not only fixed the prices of the articles which he manufactured and sold, but went still further and refused to deal with others who would not maintain the prices which he had established for his goods. In the recent opinion of Mr. in United States vs. Schrader's Sons, a case where an effort was made to fix and hold a uniform price for an article, he says: "The evil is, indeed, as it always has been to take away dealers' control of their own affairs, and thereby destroy competition, and restrain the free and natural flow of trade."