consolidation of two butchers, out of the thousands in New York City or the United States, can in nothing but a finespun impracticable sense, unfit for a basis of any sound jurisprudence, be said to constitute a monopoly, or a tendency to monopoly; although, without doubt, Mr. Justice Holmes was right in holding that the combination in United States vs. Swift[1] was illegal. An "overshadowing combination" necessarily gives the power and necessary interest to inflict the evils flowing from "sole sale," while the evil may easily be totally wanting in many minor and convenient combinations which really facilitate trade. In construing every statute since Heydon's case,[2] "what was the evil and effect" has always been carefully scrutinized. And in this matter "the evils" were "the effects" naturally flowing from the prohibited "sole sale," and not necessarily the mere method of accomplishing the prohibited thing which, however created, always and almost inevitably inflicted the evils.
- ↑ 196 U S. 375 (1905).
- ↑ 3 Coke 7 at p. 18 (1584).
20
