The so-called Beef Trust Case - Swift & Co. v. United States46 - decided in 1905, added no new principle to. the law of interstate commerce. The act of 1890 was held to have been violated by a combination of independent meat dealers in an attempt to monopolize commerce in fresh meat among the States, and to restrict the competition of their respective buyers when purchasing stock for them in the stock yards. It is significant, however, that the court emphasized that the unlawfulness of the general scheme was sufficient to render unlawful the constituent acts, which in themselves, and apart from their place in the general scheme, might not have been in violation of the Anti-Trust Act " The plan may make the parts unlawful."'47

45 Justice Brewer, while concurring in the judgment, dissented from some of the language of the majority justices. In his opinion the prohibition of the act of 1890 should be restricted to contracts in unreasonable restraint of trade.

Justice White in a dissenting opinion argued that, despite the disclaimer of the majority, the court was upholding the power of the United States to regulate the acquisition and holding of the property of state corporations.

Justice Holmes in a dissenting opinion argued that the act was a criminal statute and should, therefore, receive a strict construction, and, so construed, that its prohibitions should be restricted to contracts and combinations in restraint of trade which are illegal by the common law, namely, those contracts with a stranger whereby the contractor restrains his own freedom of trading, and those combinations formed with the purpose of excluding strangers to the combination from engaging in the business.

46 196 U. S. 375; 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 276; 49 L. ed. 518.

In Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Bay48 the court, applying the principle de minimis non curat lex, held that where the restraint complained of is insignificant, even though direct, a contract will not be held void as in violation of the Anti-Trust Act.