of the common law. Section 1 of the
Sherman law declared illegal "every contract, combination in the
form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or
commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations." Section 2
made it a misdemeanor "to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize."

But from another point of view, these new laws showed a marked change
both in the conception of the interests involved and in the means of
preventing the evils. The evil was at last conceived of as a general
public evil; the laws are not merely to protect individuals,[14]
but "to regulate commerce," "to protect trade and commerce."
More important still, it was made the duty of public officers
(district-attorneys of the United States) to institute proceedings in
equity "to prevent and restrain" violation of the Sherman Act, and a
special Commission was instituted to deal with railroad cases. It was
this undertaking of the initiative by the government, the treatment of
the problem as one of the general welfare, that marked a new epoch
in this field. The methods and agencies provided might be at first
inadequate and ineffective, but time and experience could remedy those
defects.

Sec. 10. #Policy of the Sherman anti-trust law.# But in important
respects opinion and policies were not yet clear and consistent. They
wavered from one to another conception of the method for dealing with
the problem. It was clear only that _laissez-faire_ had been laid
aside. There are three other possible policies reflecting as
many different conceptions of the problem of monopoly: (1)
monopoly-prosecuted, (2) monopoly-accepted-and-regulated,
(3) competition-maintained-and-regulated. The policy of
monopoly-prosecuted is merely negative. This is the policy of
the Sherman law. It opposed no positive action to the making of
monopolistic contracts and to the formation of combinations, but
declared them to be illegal and provided for their prosecution and
punishment after the mischief had been done. The great epoch of the
formation of combinations[15] followed the enactment of this law.
True, lack of experience by the department of justice, and lack of
vigorous effort to enforce the law, and the slow action of the courts
were largely to blame for this result. The law has proved to be more
effective to prevent new combinations since it has been successfully
enforced in a few notable cases. But once large combinations have
been formed and complex