who intentionally conspire to restrain national trade are within the Act is plain, though none of their acts without such intent would have amounted to tendency. He who does, with intent of accomplishing a given result, is certainly estopped from denying that what he did tended to that which he intended that it should tend to.
Sir F. Pollock well says:[1] "It does not lie in a man's mouth to say that the consequence which he deliberately planned and procured is too remote for the law to treat as a consequence. The iniquity of such a defence is obvious in the gross examples of the criminal law. Commanding, procuring, or inciting to a murder cannot have any 'legal consequences,' the act of compliance or obedience being a crime; but no one has suggested, on this ground, any doubt that procurement is also a crime." As will be seen, an intended restraint must always be a "direct" restraint, and no matter how indirect the means of accomplishment.
To summarize: To constitute an offence within the Act there must have been either the intent to commit the offence, or to commit acts, or acquire power tending to it; but "power" alone does not constitute the offence.
Two quotations by the Chief Justice from opinions by Mr. Justice Holmes must ever be kept in view:
"If, as we must assume, the scheme is entertained, it is, of course, contrary to the very words of the statute. * * * It is suggested that the several acts charged are lawful and that intent can make no difference. But they are bound together
- ↑ Pollock on "Torts," p. 324.
27
