lawful in themselves. Acts, any acts done in furtherance of a conspiracy to restrain are illegal. A plot to restrain National trade is a direct invasion of the express words of the Act, is as "direct" an invasion as anything can be, and "indirectness" of any or all means cannot make that which is itself direct, unlawful; indirect and legal; nor can they change what is expressly in itself denounced as criminal, into the pure and innocent, though the trusts frequently attempt to make them do so!
This is fully expressed by Judge Woods in the much-commended opinion in U. S. vs. Debs:[1]
"A conspiracy, to be sure, consists in an agreement to do something, but in the sense of the law and therefore in the sense of this statute, it must be an agreement between two or more to do by concerted action something criminal or unlawful, or, it may be, to do something lawful by criminal or unlawful means. A conspiracy, therefore, is in itself unlawful, and, in so far as this statute is directed against conspiracies in restraint of trade among the several States, it is not necessary to look for the illegality of the offence in the kind of restraint proposed; and since it would be unnecessary it would be illogical. * * * Any proposed restraint of trade, though it be in itself innocent, if it is to be accomplished by conspiracy, is unlawful."
Again, Judge Taft says, in Thomas vs. Company:[2] "The breach of a contract is unlawful; a combination with that as its purpose is unlawful, and is a conspiracy;[3] * * * therefore, this combina-
- ↑ 64 F. 748 (1894). See In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564 (1895); Loewe vs. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274 (1908).
- ↑ 62 Fed. 818 (1894).
- ↑ Angle vs. Company, 151 U. S. 1 (1894).
42
