Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-12-20

b. The degree or extent of public in
Hry is not the test. Actual injury is
immaterial.
&. The success or failure of the con-
spiracy is immaterial
Z. That the combination has cheap-
ened prices and been public benefit is
immaterial, if in fact created for an nm
lawful purpose.
s. Upon proof of the foregoing nm
lawful design it is immaterial whether
the combination is made through the
device of corporation or otherwise.
>. Such combination is an unlawful
conspiracy at common law.
10. Contracts forming fundamental
part of such an unlawful combination
are not enforceable at law or in equity.
Therefore, argued Mr. Heath con-
tracts forming part of such an unlaw-
full combination are unlawful because
contrary to public policy. A design to
wrong the public is contrary to public
policy. Proof of the elements of our
primary rule SO faint it's constituent
contracts with a purpose to wrong the
public. that no court would hesitate to
declare such contracts non-enforceable
because contrary to public policy.
Counsel declared that the Maine anti
trust statute. passed in 1889, making
criminal all combinations contrary to
public policy, in effect declares that
whatever was unlawful at common la "
is now criminally illegal by statute
Contracts in partial restraint of trade
| are enforceable and when auxiliary to
| o principal contract found to be law
| full. nder the law of 1889 the deeds to
the plaintiff We're void. The certificates
of stock received by defendants are
void by statute. The principal con-
tract was 4 statutory nullity. The
| auxiliary contracts are left without le-
| gal support.
AS an Independent defence, the con-
tact IS invalid because in total re-
| stiaint OF trade winth the sardine area
! meaning that the packing of Sardines
within 200 miles of PASSPORT was an inn
| posibislity, as no fish could be secured
| at that distance from that city.
| Liberty wisely regulated by law stops
with contracts tainted with fraud, con-
trary TO public policy or contrary t.
| statute. ! was a fraud upon the pub
| lie for the promoters to obtain cor
| poration certificate expressing any law
| full purpose ana tC secretly withhold
their unlawful purpose.
The federal statutes. known as the
| sherman antitrust law, does not in
clude acts of manufacturers. It's scop,
| does not include acts constituting do
| mestic commerce. The contracts en-
| Guided the defendants from participa-
ton in foreign and interstate COM
merce To that extent they are crimi-
nally unlawful. The plaintiff contends
that the defence of illegality could not
be asserted by these defendants with
out restoration or tender of the consid-
Grafton: but this contention overlookS
the distinction between contracts un'
lawful because simply contrary to pub
lie policy and contracts criminally lille
gal.
| In summing up, Mr.. Heath argued
that there is no legal or equitable
remedy for that which violates crimi
nal statute. The law raises the de
fence to preserve its own dignity. The
lapuarent gain to the defendant by hi:
retention of the consideration is in fac
the merited punishment of his cocoon
spirator. In such cases litiEates mus
settle their disputes in the forum o.
heir own conscience.