5. The most effective manner of dealing with tilie claims of private parties injured
by monopolistic combinations would be to separate entirely practices in the nature of
a boycott from acts of combination or consolidation in which private injury is
merely an incidental result and not directly contemplated.^ In so lar as the former
are actionable at common law, they might, if necessary, also be recomized as actiona-
ble by Federal legislation — ^althou^h even apart from an express Federal statute — ^a
boycott is probably not rendered immime from actionability under common law or
State statute by the fact that it relates to interstate commerce; a saving clause in a
Federal antitrust act would be sufficient to preserve common-law right of action.
Injuries consequental upon the formation of a monopoly, the legal status of which
is doubtful until judicially determined should, however, be dealt with by analogy
to railroad overcharges or discrimination, there should be in the first place only a
direct proceeding to establish the right or wrong of the matter^ with power in mat
same proceeding to award equitable reparation to private parties who for that pur-
pose might either initiate the proceedings or intervene in it. (See interstate com-
merce act, sees. 15 and 16, as amended by act of 1906.)

For acts subsequently done in violation of a decree and order the corporation should
be fully liable in damages to private parties, and for the purpose of such action the
decree might be made conclusive as to the illegality of the practice.
