and attempts to monopolize, and to enlarge the meaning of the Sher-
man Act to such an extent as will make combinations, partnerships,
contracts, and the normal and healthy growth of industry, which are
utterly without harm to the public, unlawful.
But the definition — and this is a question, gentlemen, of terminol-
ogy — the definition of a restraint of trade is such a restraint as harm^
the public, as invades the public interest, and all those restraints of
trade which invade the public interest are inhibited by the Sherman
Act.
The decisions have gone to such an extent as to make it perfectly
clear that no matter what the means, no matter what the methods,
no matter what the devices and combinations or conspiracies that
men may enter into the eflFect or result produced by those means
niay become unlawful if there is a restraint of trade harmful to the
public interest. But if those very contracts and combinations do
not produce a restraint of trade which is harmful to the public
interest, they are innocent and may be protected.
I have said this much by way of introduction to indicate what I
believe is the general opinion that the Sherman Act, as interpreted
by the decisions of the Federal courts have made it perfectly clear
now, that it is the common law which we meant to adopt, and the
meaning of the common law is clear and clearly understood.
