As the proper attitude of the law towards industrial agreements and combinations in restraint of trade, depends upon their economic effect, the experience of other nations, as illustrated by their laws, is of interest. They have been thus summarized: petition in certain industries or even make obligatory the combination of competitors, as, for example, in the potash industry in Germany, the sulphur industry in Italy, and the petroleum industry in Roumania." 53

"In foreign countries the greatest diversity exists with respect to trust legislation. England has no prohibitory legislation, and in the interpretation of the common law the courts appear to favor freedom of contract more than freedom of industry. In the great English colonies, however, where condi-ditions are most nearly like those in the United States, monopolistic combinations are generally forbidden. The laws of Germany allow a freedom of contract even wider than those of England, and generally uphold combinations or cartels even when they are practically monopolistic in character, while in France such combinations are prohibited in so far as they tend to disturb the natural course of prices as determined by free competition. In Austria sueh combinations are invalid but not prohibited by the criminal law. A similar diversity of law is found in other European countries.

One of the most remarkable features in the policy of certain foreign countries is the enactment of laws which restrict com-

51 The Charles E. Wiswall v. Scott, 74 Fed. 802, affd. 86 Fed. 671, 30 C. C. A. 339, 42 L. R. A. 85; Boatmen's Bank v. Fritalen, 175 Fed. 183. Cp. with State v. Wilson, 73 Kans. 334, 343, 80 Pac. 639, 84 Pac. 737,117 Am. St. Rep. 479; Louisville, etc., R. G. v. Burley Tobacco Co., 147 Ky. 22, 143 S. W. 1040; Freed v. American Fire Ins. Co., 90 Miss. 72, 43 So. 947, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 368, 122 Am. St. Rep.

307; Brooklyn Distilling Co. v. Standard Distilling, etc., Co., 120 N. Y. App. Div. 237, 105 N. Y. S. 264; Kin-ner v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 69 Ohio St. 339, 69 N. . 614; Springfield Fire, etc., Ins. Co. v. Cannon (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 375.

52 Brooklyn Distilling Co. v. Standard Distilling Ac. Co., 120 N. Y. App. 237, 105 N. Y. S. 264 (action for rent under a lease).