Excerpt from the Sherman Antitrust Act
Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or other- wise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, at the discretion of the court.
Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof; shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Use the excerpt to answer the question.
The Sherman Antitrust Act’s reference to “combination[s] in the form of trust or otherwise” implies that
A.
to be a monopoly, a company had to control an industry in the form of a trust.
B.
public policy should consider the possibility of monopolies assuming a variety of forms.
C.
trusts were most harmful to the public good when they went by other names and forms.
D.
only individuals could be held responsible for the combination of trusts that created monopolies.
B. public policy should consider the possibility of monopolies assuming a variety of forms.
B. Public policy should consider the possibility of monopolies assuming a variety of forms.
To answer this question, we need to analyze the language and context of the excerpt from the Sherman Antitrust Act. Specifically, we need to focus on the phrase "combination[s] in the form of trust or otherwise." This phrase suggests that the Act is concerned with not only trusts but also other forms of combinations or conspiracies that may restrain trade or commerce.
Given this understanding, we can eliminate options A and D as they present narrow interpretations of the Act's reference to trusts. The Act does not state that a company must control an industry in the form of a trust to be a monopoly, nor does it mention that only individuals could be held responsible for the combination of trusts.
Option C, which suggests that trusts were most harmful to the public good when they went by other names and forms, is not directly supported by the excerpt. The excerpt does not focus on the harm caused by trusts under different names or forms, but rather on the illegality of contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that restrain trade or commerce.
Therefore, the correct answer is B. The reference to "combination[s] in the form of trust or otherwise" implies that public policy should consider the possibility of monopolies assuming a variety of forms, not just trusts.