think it has been properly applied in every case in which it has been applied by the Supreme Court; I do not think that it is by any means a universal test; and that, so far as it has been so stated as applying to all cases that must be, in the first place, limited by the case actually before the Court, and in the second place, by the fact that many exceptions have already been admitted, although the principle upon which they rest has not been formulated, the statement of the rule—though with strong dissent—still being general.
Mr. Justice Holmes forcibly says:[1] "The provision of the statute against contracts in restraint of trade * * * does not require that all existing competitions shall be maintained. * * * The act of Congress will not be construed to mean the universal disintegration of society into single men, each at war with all the rest, or even the prevention of all further combinations for a common end. * * * A partnership is not a contract or combination in restraint of trade between the partners * * * The law, I repeat, says nothing about competition, and only prevents its suppression by contracts or combinations in restraint of trade, and such contracts or combinations derive their character as restraining trade from other features than the suppression of competition alone."
But, as has so often happened, the vindication of the opinion of the majority is found in the common law.
The extreme of the evil that the law strikes at is reached in monopoly, "sole sale;" that is, an extermination of competition. Suppression of competition is
- ↑ 193 U. S. 406 (1904).
47
