by George Howard Earle, Jr.

“ Glamorgan: [2]
"It is, further, a principle of the law, applicable even to the criminal law, that people are presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of their acts." Indeed, this presumption is so absolutely necessary that the Supreme Court has had to apply it even to the enactments of the sovereign States themselves, so interpreting their statutory acts, no matter how they themselves assert their purposes. "In whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effects. ”

“ But there is another viewpoint of importance in this connection, which, in its ultimate results, becomes vital, and that is that from which the law ascertains or presumes an intent as to results flowing from the forbidden acts. It was long since said: "Thought is not triable," but quite as long ago that "actions speak louder than words;" and it may be added that a knowledge of human nature as loudly as either. ”

“ Intent
The Anti-Trust Act, being a criminal as well as remedial statute, intent is, of course, necessary. But it is also, of course, only intent as legally defined.
As Mr. Justice Holmes so felicitously puts it in Ellis vs. United States: [1] "If a man intentionally adopts certain conduct in certain circumstances known to him, and that conduct is forbidden by the law under those circumstances he intentionally breaks the law in the only sense in which the law ever considers intent." ”