[REFERENCES are to pages.] Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. (224 U. S. 1; 32 Sup. Ct. 364; 56 L. Ed. 645; see 149 Fed. 424), 17, 19, 30, 188, 198. Henry Brill Publishing Co. V. Hires v. Hires (182 Pa. St. 346; Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff (198 Humphrey's Homeopathic Medicine Co. v. Wenz (14 Fed. 250), 216. I. Insurance Policies, In re (7 Pa. St. 17), 20. "International Harvester" Case (214 Fed. 987), 79, 91, 93. Internat. Silver Co. v. Wm. H. Rogers Corp. (66 N. J. Eq. 119; 57 Atl. 1037), 213. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson (154 U. S. 447; 155 U. S. 3; 14 Sup. Ct. 1125; 15 Sup. Ct. 19; 38 L. Ed. 1047; 39 L. Ed. 495; reversing 53 Fed. 476), 158. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Harriman (211 U. S. 407), 158. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. (215 U. S. 452), 126. Interstate Commerce Commission V. Humboldt Steamship Company (224 U. S. 474), 39, 98. J. Jacobus v. Am. Min. Water Mch. K. "Knight" Case (156 U. S. 1; 15 Sup. Ct. 249; 39 L. Ed. 325, affirming 60 Fed. 934; 9 C. C. A. 297; 24 L. R. A. 428; 17 U. S. App. 466, which affirmed 60 Fed. 306), 78, 82. Kilbourn v. Thompson (103 U. S. 168), 158. L. Langan v. Francklyn (29 Abb. N. C. [N. Y.] 102), 225. Lare v. Harper (30 C. C. A. 376), 215. Lawler v. Loewe (235 U. S. 522, see Loewe v. Lawler, "Danbury Hat" Case), 175. Locker v. American Tobacco Co. (121 [N. Y.] App. Div. 443, 106 N. Y. Supp. 115), 173. Loewe v. Lawler "Danbury Hat" Case (235 U. S. 522; 208 U. S. 274; 130 Fed. 633; 142 Fed. 216; 148 Fed. 924; 187 Fed. 522), 175. Lonas v. State (3 Heisk. [Tenn.] 287), 151. Louisville Gas Co. v. Citizens' Gas Light Co. (115 U. S. 683; 6 Sup. Ct. 265; 29 L. Ed. 510, reversing 81 Ky. 263), 18. Lyons v. Wilkins (67 L. J. ch. 383), 183. M. McClure v. Law (161 N. Y. 78; 55 N. E. 388; 76 Am. St. 262), 226. McCutcheon v. Merz Capsule Co. (71 Fed. 787; 19 C. C. A. 108; 31 L. R. A. 415), 20. McGourkey v. Toledo & O. C. Ry. Co. (146 U. S. 536), 225. McIntire v. Ajax Mining Co. (17 Utah 213; 20 id. 323; 28 id. 162; 77 Pac. 613), 224. Macklem v. Fales (130 Mich. 66), 226. Martell v. White (185 Mass. 255; 69 N. E. 1085; 64 L. R. A. 260; 102 Am. St. Rep. 341), 176. Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc, etc., Co. (41 Atl. 116, affirming 55 N. J. Eq. 211; 222, 37 Atl. 539), 1. Merrimack Mfg. Co. v. Garner (4 E. D. Smith [N. Y.] 387; 2 Abb. Pr. 318), 216. Mines v. Scribner (147 Fed. 927), 198. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co. (194 U. S. 48; 2 Fed. Antitrust Dec. 533; 24 Sup. Ct. 588; [REFERENCES ARE TO PAGES.] 48 L. Ed. 870; reversing 123 Fed. 692), 87, 115, 116. Munn v. Illinois (94 U. S. 113), 78, 81. N. Nathan v. Louisiana (8 How. [U. S.] 73), 47. National Biscuit Co. v. Baker (95 National Biscuit Co. v. Ohio Bak- National Fireproofing Company v. National Lead Co. v. Grote Paint Store Co. (80 Mo. App. 247), 20. National Protective Assoc. v. Cumming (170 N. Y. 315, 326; 63 N. E. 369, 371; 58 S. R. A. 135, 140; 88 Am. St. Rep. 648), 175. Nelson v. United States (201 U. S. 92; 26 Sup. Ct. 358; 50 L. Ed. 773, affirming 52 Fed. 646), 152, 163. New Orleans v. Hoyle (23 La. Ann. 740), 18. New Orleans Butchers' Union New York Life Insurance Co. v. Deer Lodge County (231 U. S. 498), 47. Northern Securities Co. v. United States (193 U. S. 197; 24 Sup. Ct. 436; 48 L. Ed. 679; affirming 120 Fed. 721), 21, 32, 80, 149, 230. O. Olsen v. Smith (195 U. S. 332; 25 Sup. Ct. 52; 49 L. Ed. 224; affirming [Texas Civ. App.] 68 S. W. 320), 17. Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger (107 Fed. 131), 190. Over v. Byram Foundry Co. (77 N. E. 302 [Ind. App. 1906]), 19. Oxford University v. WilmoreAndrews Pub. Co. (101 Fed. 443), 212. P. Pacific Factor Co. v. Adler (90 Cal. 110; 27 Pac. 36, 25 Am. St. 102), 20. Pacific Railways Commission, In re (32 Fed. 241), 158. Pasteur Vaccine Co. v. Burkey (22 Tex. Civ. App. 232; 54 S. W. 804), 20. Paul v. Virginia (8 Wall. 168), 47. People v. City Prison Warden (144 N. Y. 529; 30 N. E. 686; 27 L. R. A. 718), 17. People v. North River Sugar Co. (121 N. Y. 582; 24 N. E. 834; 9 L. R. A. 33; 18 Am. St. 843, affirming 2 Abb. N. C. 164; 54 Hun 355; 3 N. Y. Supp. 401; 2 L. R. A. 33), 81. People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251; 54 N. Y. St. Rep'r 513; 34 N. E. 785; 23 L. R. A. 221; 36 A. St. Rep. 690), 1. Perry v. Truefitt (6 Beav. 66), 209. Pickett v. Walsh (192 Mass. 572; 78 N. E. 753; 6 L. R. A. [N. S.] 1067; 116 Am. St. Rep. 272); 42 American Law Review 706), 174. Pidding v. How (8 Sim. 477), 209. Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. Eagle (86 Fed. 608; 30 C. C. A. 386; 41 L. R. A. 162, reversing 82 Fed. 816), 212. Poultney, ex parte (4 Peters C. C. C. 472), 113. Q. Queen Ins. Co. v. State (86 Texas 253; 24 S. W. 397; 22 L. R. A. 483, reversing 22 S. W. 1048), 20. [REFERENCES Are to pages.] Scheuer v. Muller (74 Fed. 225; 20 C. C. A. 165), 215. Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co. (163 U. S. 169; 16 Sup. Ct. 1002; 41 L. Ed. 118), 216. Standard Oil Co. v. United States (221 U. S. 1; 31 Sup. Ct. 502; 55 L. Ed. 619; 34 L. R. A. [N. S.] 834, modifying 173 Fed. 177), 19, 93, 146, 193. V. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. 157. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. La Chapelle (212 Mass. 67; 99 N. E. 289), 187. United States v. Addystone Pipe, etc., Co. (85 Fed. 271, 806, 814; 29 C. C. A. 141; 54 U. S. App. 723; 46 L. R. A. 122, reversing 78 Fed. 712; affirmed 175 U. S. 211; 20 Sup. Ct. 96; 44 L. Ed. 136), 146, 149, 203. United States v. American Naval Stores Co. (172 Fed. 455; 186 Fed. 592), 15. United States v. American Tobacco Co. (221 U. S. 66; 31 Sup. Ct. 648; 55 L. Ed. 694; reversing 164 Fed. 700), 19, 93, 146. United States v. Armour & Co. (142 Fed. 808), 155, 157, 158, 162, 163. United States v. Debs (158 U. S. 564; 15 Sup. Ct. 900; 39 Fed. 1092), 175. United States v. Heike (227 U. S. 131), 157, 159. United States v. Hermison (26 Fed. Cas. No. 15, 308; 3 Sawyer 556), 164. United States v. Int. Harvester Co. (214 Fed. 987), 19, 79, 91, 93. United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (156 U. S. 1; 15 Sup. Ct. 249; 39 L. Ed. 325, affirming 60 Fed. 934; 9 C. C. A. 297; 24 L. R. A. 428; 17 U. S. App. 466, which affirmed 60 Fed. 306), 78, 82. United States v. Northern Securities Co. (193 U. S. 197; 24 Sup. Ct. 436; 48 L. Ed. 679; affirming 120 Fed. 721), 21, 32, 80, 149, 230. Uuited States v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. (187 Fed. 229; 191 Fed. 172, affirmed 226 U. S. 20; 33 Sup. Ct. 9; 55 L. Ed.; 57 L. Ed.) 19, 161, 191. United States v. Swift (186 U. S. 1002), 158. [REFERENCES Are to pages.] United States v. Terminal R. Association of St. Louis, 148 Fed. 487, reversed 154 Fed. 268), 160. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc'n (166 U. S. 290; 17 Sup. Ct. 540; 41 L. Ed. 1007, reversing 58 Fed. 58; 7 C. C. A. 15; 19 U. S. App. 36; 54 L. R. A. 73; 4 Interstate Com. Rep. 443, which reversed 53 Fed. 440), 19, 49, 116. United States v. Union Pacific Railroad (226 U. S. 306; 33 Sup. Ct. 53; 57 L. Ed., reversing 188 Fed. 116), 79, 91, 93. CHAPTER I. NATURE AND LIMITATIONS OF COMPETITION IN I. Definition. TRADE. 2. Benefits of Right to Compete. 3. Proper Exercise of Right. LIBRARY 4. To Retain Rights, Assistance Sometimes Required. 5. Government Accords Aid to Parties Thus Situated. 6. New Measures and Methods Required. 7. Advantages of Railroad Rate Regulation. 8. Supervision of General Business Desired. 9. Purpose of Recent Legislation. 10. Views of Leading Authorities Quoted. 11. Remarks on Field for Commission. 1. DEFINITION. Competition Judicially Defined.-The term competition in commerce or trade has been defined as that series of acts or course of conduct which is the result of the free choice of the individual and not of any legal or moral obligation or duty.1 2. BENEFITS OF RIGHT TO COMPETE. Beneficial Effect in Practice.-In practice it leads to important results, because the self-interest of the individual when exercised in an untrammelled manner inures to the benefit of all. Such at least is the theory of competition; and its influence and stimulating effect have occasioned the familiar saying "competition is the life of trade." The value of competition to the state has been recognized by authority, for "the courts have acted upon and adopted this maxim [competition is the life of trade] in passing upon the validity of agreements, the design of which was to prevent competition in trade, and have held such agreements to be invalid."2 3. PROPER EXERCISE OF RIGHT. Limitations of Right to Compete.-But freedom in competi 1 Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc, Etc., Co., 41 Atl. 116, affirming 55 N. J. Eq. 211, 222, 37 Atl. 539. 2 People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251, 263, 54 N. Y. St. Rep'r 513, 34 N. E. 785, 23 L. R. A. 221; quoted in State v. Armour (1903), 173 Mo. 356; 73 S. W. 645, 652; 61 L. R. A. 464; 96 Am. St. 515. |