In each case the court found the defendants guilty on the grounds that
the agreements and the conduct of the defendants indicated a purpose to
destroy competitors and monopolize trade in certain articles. The
desired result was accomplished by wrongful means which injured the
public as well as the competitors.
The facts in neither case required the consideration of the question as
to whether the Sherman act prohibited every unification of formerly
competing properties and every restraint of trade, reasonable or
unreasonable but, owing to the uncertainty of the public concerning the
meaning of the law, the court stated definitely the meaning and scope of