Provided a Natural Constituency

For this reason, small firms provided a natural constituency in support of antitrust legislation. But they were not alone. The rise of railroads and large manufacturing firms was simultaneous with a period of agricultural depression. In a period of low farm prices, the pattern of rail rates, which had to be paid to move farm products to market, seemed discriminatory to many in agriculture. Industrial prices were protected by tariffs that limited foreign competition. They remained high in relation to farm prices. When depression hit manufacturing, large firms combined to form cartels, an option not open to farmers.

In response to mergers and the formation of cartels, several states passed their own antitrust legislation toward the end of the nineteenth century. This action demonstrated a broad base of public support for such regulations. But the state laws were ineffective: trusts operated nationally, and could freely relocate to states that took a more permissive view of their activities. To set the ground rules in a national marketplace, federal legislation was required. The result was the Sherman act, followed by later legislation as previously described.