This concisely worded law represented the first congressional attempt at ANTITRUST legislation. Neither the reasons for its approval nor its framers' intent are clear, but several circumstances ordained its passage. Individual state attempts to regulate monopoly were often unsuccessful; a federal statute would satisfy the need for uniform national policy as well as consistent practice. In addition, a heritage of antimonopoly sentiment and an economic depression combined to inflame public opinion against the industrial giants. Consequently, the platforms of both major parties contained antimonopoly planks in 1888, and, following his election, President BENJAMIN HARRISON asked Congress to redeem this pledge. Of sixteen bills introduced into the next Congress, one, sponsored by Senator John Sherman (Republican, Ohio), was briefly debated and then referred to the Judiciary Committee. Six days later the committee reported out a completely re-written
bill which received only cursory debate and passed 52?1 in the SENATE and 242?0 in the HOUSE. The lack of debate, particularly over such a potentially controversial bill, has never been satisfactorily explained. Often-cited possibilities include fierce interparty competition for support from the vigorously antimonopoly West and an underestimation of the act's importance. Contemporaries paid it little attention?the trusts and their congressional allies did not even bother to oppose the bill. Its proponents conceded that the act was an experimental entry into a new field of ECONOMIC REGULATION. In fact, it contained nothing new.
Although Senator Sherman was the moving force behind the bill, Senator George Edmunds (Republican, Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote most of it. Despite Edmunds's claim that it was "clear in its terms? [and] definite in its definitions," the act failed to define the two most important concepts in it: monopoly and restraint of trade. Although there is a debate over the (Anglo-American) COMMON LAW underpinnings of the act, most scholars agree that the common law forbade agreements in restraint of trade and CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to monopolize. The controversy arises over these doctrines' application in America and the extent of their incorporation into the Sherman Act. The final bill also omitted any specific exemption for labor or farm organizations. Congress either meant to leave the issue to the courts (see LOEWE...