Page:Earle, Liberty to Trade as Buttressed by National Law, 1909 69.jpg



So far as criminal liability under the Act is concerned, intra-state acts are only important as evidence tending to prove the interstate offence. The making of the combination, etc., is in and of itself the offence; and nothing further need be said on this phase of the matter.

But where a recovery under the Seventh Section is sought, they become of great importance; indeed, they may be vital.

The Act was manifestly drawn by a masterhand, as is shown in many respects.

As an example, acts in restraint must be of two or more; there must be some combined action. It was not overlooked that, otherwise, everyone who did not use his property, or stopped using his property to its full working capacity, might find himself subject to suits and penalties.

But the strongest illustration of the legal knowledge and precise and proper use of words of the drafters of the Act is found in this Seventh Section: "Any person who shall be injured in his business or property * * * may sue therefore * * * and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained," etc. No one not an able lawyer could have drawn that section, for it exactly follows the principles of the common law.

The right to sue is, as at common law, made dependent not upon damage at all, but upon