In Hopkins v. United States38 it was held that a live stock commission merchant whose place of business was a certain stock yard and who there bought and sold stock for others, was not engaged in interstate commerce, within the meaning of the act of 1890, although the stock was shipped to him from another State. Therefore, it was held, the rules and regulations of an association of live stock commission merchants, fixing the rates to be charged, were not agreements affecting interstate commerce.39 The court, for the evident reassurance of those who had been disturbed by the holding in the Trans-Missouri Freight Association case as to the illegality of all contracts, whether reasonable or not, in restraint of interstate trade, go on to say: " To treat as condemned by the act all agreements under which, as a result, the cost of conducting an interstate commercial business may be increased, would enlarge the application of the act far beyond the fair meaning of the language used. There must be some direct and immediate effect upon interstate commerce, in order to come within the act. . . . Many agreements suggest themselves which relate only to facilities furnished commerce, or else touch it only in an indirect way, while possibly enhancing the cost of transacting the business, and which at the same time we would not think of as agreements in restraint of interstate trade or commerce. They are agreements which in their effect operate in furtherance and in aid of commerce, by providing for it facilities, conveniences, privileges, or services, but which do not directly relate to charges for its transportation, nor to any other form of interstate commerce. To hold all such agreements void would, in our judgment, improperly extend the act to matters which are not of an interstate commercial nature."
38 171 U. S. 578; 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40; 43 L. ed. 290.
39 "The selling of an article at its destination, which has been sent from another State," the opinion declares, " while it may be regarded as an interstate sale, and one which the importer was entitled to make, yet the services of the individual employed at the place where the article is sold are not so connected with the subject sold as to make them a portion of interstate commerce; and a combination in regard to the amount to be charged for such services is not therefore, a combination in restraint of trade or commerce. . . . Indirectly, and as an incident, they may enhance the cost to the owner of the cattle in finding a market, or they may add to the price paid by the purchaser, but they are not charges which are directly laid upon the article in the course of transportation and which are charges upon the commerce itself."