Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/407

 375

Latest Important Cases normal business methods” in the former decision.

The grounds of Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissent were the same reasons which had led to his dissent in the Standard Oil case, namely, he thought that the previous decisions of the Court made it

necessary to construe the Sherman Act as prohibiting all monopolistic combina tions and contracts, without regard to

their reasonableness or unreasonable ness. "Corners" Illegal — Conspiracies which are Illegal as Combinations Contrary to Public Policy-Sherman Anti-trust Law.

U. S. In U. S. v. Patten, decided last March, the United States Circuit Court for the southern district of New York

ruled that "corners” are illegal, being combinations contrary to public policy. Judge Noyes said: "Unless and until the common law rule is changed by statute it is clear that when in either a state or a national enactment the offense of conspiracy, either general or speciﬁc, is created, the

express enumeration of all the particu lars included in that term.’ (U. S. v. Smith, 5 Wheat., 153, 159.). ..

"Corners are illegal. They are com binations contrary to public policy and all contracts and undertakings in support thereof are void (1 Eddy on Combina tions, sec. 81; Greenhood on Pub. Pol.,

p. 642, and cases cited in both treatises). But while a corner is illegal because it is a combination which arbitrarily con

trols the prices of a commodity, it cannot, strictly speaking, be called acom bination in restraint of competition.

On the contrary, the bidding up of the prices incident to the creation of a corner necessarily increases competition. Activity in trade, temporarily at least,

follows increased demand.

Everything

tends to stimulate competition, although abnormally and feverishly. A corner is

altogether wrong, both from a legal and an economical standpoint, but it would

seem to be condemned by other prin ciples of public policy than those par

ticularly relating to combinations in restraint of competition.

incidents of the offense at common law go with it. The term ‘conspiracy’ has a well deﬁned common law meaning. Congress in using it might attach limi

"It is clear, upon the foregoing prin ciples, that the combination described in these counts is negatively illegal with out any prohibitory statute and would be positively unlawful in any state

tations and

having a statute against corners.

qualiﬁcations,

but if it

fail to do so the common law deﬁnition governs. That which completes the common law oﬁense completes the statutory oﬁ‘ense.

‘Congress may as

well deﬁne by using a term of a known and determinate meaning as by an

But

upon equally well settled principles it is manifest that the combination is not in violation of the Federal Anti Trust Statute unless it obstruct the current of interstate commerce." See Immunity.