Judicial Decisions Affecting Trusts. 
143 
pose of monopolizing trade in that commodity with the object of 
extortion. It is plain that this renders the law of no effect, 
when one considers that it is practically impossible for the most 
powerful trust to acquire and retain control of an entire in¬ 
dustry. Nor is it easy to prove that a combination was formed 
for the definite purpose of extortion. This is illustrated in the 
case of the Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. Howard 
Watch Co., 20 where it was held that an agreement by a number 
of manufacturers and dealers in watch cases, to fix an arbitrary 
price on their goods, and not to sell them to persons buying the 
plaintiff’s watch cases, was not in violation of the statute of 
1890, unless it covers the intent to absorb or control the entire 
market, or a large portion thereof. 
Equally suggestive are the words of Judge Putnam of the 
United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, in the 
-case of J. H. Patterson, 21 who was indicted for violating the Act 
of 1890. “ A combination, contract, or conspiracy in restraint 
of trade may be not only not illegal, but praiseworthy; as, when 
parties attempt to engross the market by furnishing the best 
goods or the cheapest. A case cannot be made under the statue 
unless the means are shown to be illegal. ” A similar and recent 
■decision has already been noticed on page 138 in United States 
v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association et al. 
It is apparent from these successive decisions adverse to the 
government that the law has not only utterly failed in its object, 
but that no statute however exhaustive and stringent, based on 
the commerce clause of the constitution, would be any more 
effective. That monopoly in production does not constitute 
restraint of interstate commerce is indicated in the cases already 
-cited, but in no other case has it been so clearly stated as in 
the one in which the Sugar Trust was again brought into court. 
In the suit brought by the government 22 to test the legality of 
the Sugar Trust’s absorbtion of the four large Philadelphia re¬ 
fineries, Judge Butler decided in favor of the trust. It was 
-charged that the American Sugar Refining Company entered 
20 U. S. Cir. Court, S. Dis., N. Y., May, 1893, 55 Fed. Rep. 851. 
21 February 28,1893. 
22 U. S. Cir. Court, Jan. 30,1894, 60 Fed. Rep. 310. 
