sons engaged in the same business for the direct and bona fide purpose of properly and reasonably regulating the conduct of their business among themselves and with the public. If an agreement of that nature, while apt and proper for the purpose thus intended, should possibly, though only indirectly and unintentionally, affect interstate trade or commerce, in that event we think the agreement would be good. Otherwise, there is scarcely any agreement among men which has interstate or foreign commerce for its subject that may not remotely be said to in some obscure way affect that commerce, and be void." The synonyms of "indirect," used in this decision, being "unintended," "obscure," "not its purpose," "incidentally," "possibly though unintentionally," "if at all," "no purpose of affecting or in any manner restraining," "if at all only in a very indirect and remote," "no direct tendency to diminish or in any way impede or restrain," "no tendency directly or indirectly to restrict competition," "not with intent or purpose of affecting in the slightest degree," "no tendency to limit the extent of the demand, or to limit the number marketed, or to limit or reduce price, or place any impediment in the course of the commercial stream," "too remote and fanciful," "reasonable and fair," "possibly in but a remote way." But what is this, but an able application of the common law, as laid down by Baron Parke in Mallan vs. May?
In the Securities case,[1] Mr. Justice White says: "Where an authority is exerted by a State, which is within its power, and that authority, as exer-
- ↑ 193 U. S. 394 (1904).
37
