Am"juhur'i9?9arm'  )    News  Items  and  Persona!  Xotes.  485 
"  The  purpose  of  the  Sherman  Act  is  to  prohibit  monopolies,  con- 
tracts and  combinations  which  probably  would  unduly  interfere  with 
the  free  exercise  of  their  rights  by  those  engaged,  or  who  wish  to 
engage,  in  trade  and  commerce — in  a  word  to  preserve  the  right  of 
freedom  to  trade.  In  the  absence  of  any  purpose  to  create  or  main- 
tain a  monopoly,  the  Act  does  not  restrict  the  long  recognized  right 
of  trader  or  manufacturer  engaged  in  an  entirely  private  business, 
freely  to  exercise  his  own  independent  discretion  as  to  parties  with 
whom  he  will  deal.  And.  of  course,  he  may  announce  in  advance 
the  circumstances  under  which  he  will  refuse  to  sell.  1  The  trader 
or  manufacturer,  on  the  other  hand,  carries  on  an  entirely  private 
business  and  may  sell  to  whom  he  pleases.'  United  States  v.  Trans- 
Missouri  Freight  Association,  166  U.  S.  290,  320.  4  A  retail  dealer 
has  the  unquestioned  right  to  stop  dealing  with  a  wholesaler  for 
reasons  sufficient  to  himself  ,  and  may  do  so  because  he  thinks  such 
dealer  is  acting  unfairly  in  trying  to  undermine  his  trade.'  Eastern 
States  Retail  Lumber  Dealers'  Association  v.  The  United  States, 
234  U.  S.  600.  614.  See  also  Standard  Oil  Company  v.  United 
States,  221  U.  S.  1,  56;  United  States  v.  American  Tobacco  Com- 
pany, 221  U.  S.  106,  180  :  Boston  Store  of  Chicago  v.  American 
Graphophone  Company  et  al..  246  U.  S.  8.  In  Dr.  Miles  Medical 
Company  v.  Park  &  Sons  Company,  supra,  the  unlawful  combina- 
tion was  effected  through  contracts  which  undertook  to  prevent 
dealers  from  freely  exercising  the  right  to  sell. 
"The  judgment  of  the  District  Court  must  be 
"Affirmed." 
This  decision  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  will  un- 
doubtedly have  an  important  bearing  upon'  the  future  course  of  the 
Federal  Trade  Commission  and  may  even  be  considered  a  long  step 
in  the  direction  of  modifying  the  interpretation  placed  upon  the 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act  or  preferably  its  modification  by  legislation 
that  will  promote  fair  methods  of  trading  and  the  restriction  of  un- 
scrupulous price-cutting.  The  unanimity  of  the  decision  leaves  no 
doubt  as  to  the  trend  of  public  opinion.  In  an  editorial  comment 
when  this  suit  was  announced  (see  American  Journal  of  Phar- 
macy. March,  191 8,  page  160")  the  following  statement  was  made : 
"It  would  appear  to  us  that  there  is  here  no  evidence  of  intent  to 
restrain  trade.    The  effort  of  Colgate  and  Company  appears  to  be 
