Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/431

 The Deﬁnition of Criminal Conspiracy focussing all the law upon every proposi tion." f, By strict adherence to these logical systems. Dr. Andrews considers that it will be possible to give a more complete treatment of the law in twenty volumes than is now given in forty, “provided, the text is devoted entirely to law; no text space is wasted by padding it with obsolete rules; the citation is not padded with a mass of cases, supporting elementary rules; repetition is carefully avoided by the plan; the citation is of cases in point where the question was actually involved and really

decided."

407

Dr. Andrews in concluding emphasizes the necessity of ﬁnancial support for the proposed statement of the American corpus juris. He says that “constructive genius and the effi cient plan must have the support of dynamic energy and national feeling." meaning by “dynamic energy" ﬁnancial support. He adds: a foundation is, no doubt. the ideal method of support, other practical methods are obvious. The work is clearly one of national importance and is deserving of the active co-operation of the legal profession in its creation and the hearty support of all with energy and natural feeling."

Vagueness of the Deﬁnition of Criminal Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade HE common law in this country, as it

applies to criminal conspiracies in re

straint of trade, is carefully investigated by Arthur M. Allen of Providence, R. 1., in a valuable article in the Harvard Law Review. By reviewing a large number of cases decided at different times in the United States on common law rather than on statutory grounds, he shows that the courts have not given as broad scope to the doctrine of conspiracy in restraint of trade as the Amerimn public is disposed to think. His conclusions are as follows: “(1) That the courts will not hold a con

spiracy criminal merely on the ground that it has a tendency to prejudice the public; the purpose or means must be shown to be

civilly or criminally illegal. "(2) There is not. under the decisions up to this time, any well-recognized crime known as a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade, that is, sui generis, which will be held to be criminal when it does not come within the ordinary deﬁnitions. "(3) So far as combinations in restraint of

trade are criminal at all, they divide them selves into not more than four classes: (a) combinations made criminal by certain old English statutes, and these are not generally regarded as being now in force in the United

States; (b) combinations which are criminal by reason of illegality of purpose or means; (c) possibly combinations coming within the deﬁnitions of forestalling, regrating, or en grossing, but it is doubtful if these are now in force in this country. and they certainly are not to their full extent; (d) according to dicta, rather than decisions, combinations to

create monopolies of necessities of life. Clearly the most usual forms of agreements among dealers in commodities to ﬁx and regulate prices, when the prices are not unreasonable, the means used are not illegal, and the parties to the agreement do not comprise all the dealers in the community, do not come within any of the above classes." Mr. Allen thinks that if monopolies of necessities of life are to be held criminal at common law many diﬁiculties will arise. How are necessitiesto be deﬁned? he asks. Again : "What constitutes a monopoly, and how wide in extent must it be? For example, an agreement among all the dealers of a single city is held not to amount to a monopoly. Kellogg v. Larki'n, 3 Pinn. (Wis) 123. Nor does an agreement by twenty salt dealers, although a large proportion of all the dealers in a province, constitute a monopoly. Ontario Salt Co. v. ﬂ/Ierchants Salt Co., 18 Grant's

Ch. (Can.) 540.

On the other hand it has