http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html
http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/sherman_antitrust.html
Title: Sherman Antitrust Act
Author: U.S. Government
Year Published: 1890
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
Sec. 1. 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, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any States or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the courts shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decrees, the court many at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.
Sec. 5. Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under Section four of this act may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.
Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.
Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Sec. 8. That the word "person," or "persons," wherever used in this act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, and the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/antitrust/sherman.shtml
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, as amended, prohibits every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade and allows for the imposition of substantial penalties for violations thereof. The Act is named after Senator John Sherman, who first proposed the Act to address growing concern over the rapidly increasing prominence of large corporations, corporate trusts and business combinations in the US economic landscape toward the end of the nineteenth century. Set forth at Title 15, §§ 1-7 of the US Code, the Sherman Act finds its basis in Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce and was enacted at a time when the only similar laws were state statutes governing intrastate businesses.
Although the Sherman Act had immediate potential to aid the federal government in addressing concerns over increasing corporate power, its potential was not realized for several years. Initially, Supreme Court decisions effectively prevented its utilization by the federal government, and thereafter, Congress only gradually put in place the supporting legislation and agencies necessary to successfully challenge anticompetitive activities. This building process began in 1904, as President Theodore Roosevelt launched his "trust-busting" campaigns and the Supreme Court found in favor of the federal government, dissolving the Northern Securities Company. The reach of the Sherman Act increased during the Taft and Wilson administrations, with the enactment of the Clayton Antitrust Act and the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission in 1914. Further, the addition of supplementary legislation, such as the Robinson-Patman Act during President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration, continued to improve the ability of federal government to challenge corporate actions on antitrust grounds. Finally, as federal antitrust agencies began broadening their interpretations of the antitrust statutes in the 1980s and 1990s, antitrust enforcement reached new heights, beginning with the 1982 breakup of the AT&T monopoly, and culminating with the widely publicized Microsoft Case.
§1 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty.
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.  <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/2.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/2.html>. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty 
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>3 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.  <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/3.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/3.html>. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony 
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>4 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.  <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/4.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/4.html>. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure 
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>5 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.  <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/5.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/5.html>. Bringing in additional parties 
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>6 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.  <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/6.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/6.html>. Forfeiture of property in transit 
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>7 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.  <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/6a.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>6a <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/6a.html> (Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982). Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations 

<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html>8 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.  <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/7.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1.html><http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/7.html>. "Person" or "persons" defined
http://search.eb.com/elections/micro/131/18.html
Clayton Antitrust Act,
law enacted in 1914 by the United States Congress to clarify and strengthen the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). The vague language of the latter had provided large corporations with numerous loopholes, enabling them to engage in certain restrictive business arrangements which, though not illegal per se, resulted in concentrations that had an adverse effect on competition. Thus, despite the trust-busting activities of both the Roosevelt and Taft administrations under the Sherman Act, it appeared to a congressional committee in 1913 that big business had continued to grow bigger and that the control of money and credit in the country was such that a few men had the power to plunge the nation into a financial panic. When Pres. Woodrow Wilson asked for a drastic revision of existing antitrust legislation, Congress eagerly accommodated by passing the Clayton measure. 
Whereas the Sherman Act declares monopoly illegal, the Clayton Act defines in some detail varied types of illegal business practices that are conducive to the formation of monopolies or that result from them. Certain forms of holding companies and interlocking directorates are forbidden, as are discriminating freight agreements and the distribution of sales territories among so-called natural competitors. Two sections of the Clayton Act were later amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (1936) and the Celler-Kefauver Act (1950) to fortify its provisions. The Robinson-Patman amendment made more enforceable Section 2, which relates to price and other forms of discrimination among customers. The Celler-Kefauver Act strengthened Section 7, prohibiting one firm from securing either the stocks or physical assets (i.e., plant and equipment) of another firm when the acquisition would reduce competition. The amendment, furthermore, extended the coverage of antitrust laws to all forms of mergers whenever the effect would substantially lessen competition and tend to create a monopoly. Earlier legislative measures had simply restricted horizontal mergers--those involving firms that produce the same type of goods. In contrast, the Celler-Kefauver Act restricts even mergers of companies in different industries, that is, conglomerate mergers. See also Sherman Antitrust Act </elections/micro/542/88.html>.
http://search.eb.com/elections/micro/542/88.html
Sherman Antitrust Act,
first legislation enacted by the United States Congress (1890) to curb concentrations of power that interfere with trade and reduce economic competition. It was named for U.S. senator John Sherman, who was an expert on the regulation of commerce. One of the act's main provisions outlaws all combinations that restrain trade between states or with foreign nations. This prohibition applies not only to formal cartels but also to any agreement to fix prices, limit industrial output, share markets, or exclude competition. A second key provision makes illegal all attempts to monopolize any part of trade or commerce in the United States. These two provisions, which comprise the heart of the Sherman Act, are enforceable by the Department of Justice through litigation in the federal courts. Firms found in violation of the act can be ordered dissolved by the courts, and injunctions to prohibit illegal practices can be issued. Violations are punishable by fines and imprisonment. Moreover, private parties injured by violations are permitted to sue for triple the amount of damages done them. 
For more than a decade after its passage, the Sherman Act was invoked only rarely against industrial monopolies, and then not successfully, chiefly because of narrow judicial interpretations of what constitutes trade or commerce among states. Its only effective use was against trade unions, which were held by the courts to be illegal combinations. The first vigorous enforcement of the Sherman Act occurred during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09). In 1914 Congress passed two legislative measures that provided support for the Sherman Act. One of these was the Clayton Antitrust Act </elections/micro/131/18.html> (q.v.), which elaborated on the general provisions of the Sherman Act and specified many illegal practices that either contributed to or resulted from monopolization. The other measure created the Federal Trade Commission, providing the government with an agency that had the power to investigate possible violations of antitrust legislation and issue orders forbidding unfair competition practices. 
In 1920, however, the Supreme Court applied the so-called "rule of reason" interpretation of the Sherman Act, which explains that not every contract or combination restraining trade is unlawful. Only "unreasonable" restraint of trade through acquisitions, mergers, and predatory pricing constitute a violation of the Sherman Act. This interpretation allowed large firms considerably more latitude. But in a case involving the Aluminum Company of America (1945), the court reversed its stance, declaring that the size and structure of a corporation were sufficient grounds for antitrust action. Since that ruling, the prohibition against monopoly has been periodically enforced, involving in some cases the dismemberment of the offending firm. One notable example late in the 20th century was the dismemberment of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (1984) under the act's provisions. Enforcement of the Sherman Act also has discouraged the use of exclusionary tactics to eliminate competition.