Page:Earle, Liberty to Trade as Buttressed by National Law, 1909 06.jpg

 might make such competition even a fraud is, nevertheless, perfectly legal; that "unifications of interest" by complete ownership are indirect and legal, while they are also the most dangerous and illegal forms of direct restraint; that absolutely every restraint of trade is illegal, though there are many exceptions to this rule, without exception; that trade could be "reasonably" restrained, but that nothing could be more "unreasonable" than any restraint of that which is so vital to the nation; that monopolies could only emanate from sovereign authority; but that monopoly merely meant "sole sale," or that which tended to it, no matter how created, etc. Neither was there in text-book nor decision an easy and readily found answer to these apparent enigmas.

It may be that all this presents no difficulty to my brethren of the Bar, but that it did to me cannot be doubted. I am, therefore, tempted by my own difficulties and labors to write this essay, hoping that it may lighten similar ones for others should a solution prove burdensome to them also.

Pressed as I am by other duties, it is not my purpose to write a general treatise upon the subject, but merely to suggest possible solutions and explanations of some of the main difficulties of the subject including, of course, those already referred to.