286 U.S.

427
52 S.Ct. 607
76 L.Ed. 1204

ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS, Inc., et al.

v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 667.
Argued April 28, 1932.
Decided May 23, 1932.

Messrs. Dale D. Drain and Alvin L. Newmyer, both of Washington, D. C.,

for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 428-429 intentionally omitted]
Mr. John LordO'Brian, Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from page 430 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit brought by the United States against appellants to enjoin them
from continuing, in the District of Columbia, an alleged combination and
conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in cleaning, dyeing, and
otherwise renovating clothes, contrary to section 3 of the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209, U. S. C. title 15, 3 (15 USCA 3). Appellants
answered, setting up affirmatively that they were engaged solely in the
performance of labor and rendering service in cleaning, dyeing, and renovating
wearing apparel and other articles which had passed into the hands of the
ultimate consumers thereof, and that this did not constitute trade or commerce
within the meaning of the Anti-Trust Act. Upon motion the answer was
stricken from the files, on the ground that the matter pleaded was not a valid
defense. Appellants elected to stand upon their answers; and a decree was
entered as prayed. The case comes here by appeal under the provisions of the
Act of February 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 Stat. 823, U. S. C. title 15, 29 (15 USCA
29); Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311, 322, 48 S. Ct. 311, 72 L.

Ed. 587; United States v. California Co-op. Canneries, 279 U. S. 553, 558, 49
S. Ct. 423, 73 L. Ed. 838.
2

Upon the facts which stand admitted and those affirmatively pleaded by the
answers, the sole question to be determined is whether, within the meaning of
section 3 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, appellants are engaged in trade or
commerce in the District of Columbia.

The facts, established as above, are that they are carrying on the business of
cleaning, dyeing, and renovating wearing apparel at plants located in the
District, in part, and in some cases principally, at wholesale pursuant to
contracts or engagements with numerous so-called retail dyers and cleaners
who maintain shops in the District for receiving from the public clothing to be
cleaned, dyed, or otherwise renovated. Appellants, in Angust, 1928, met
together in the District and agreed to raise the then current prices charged for
cleaning, dyeing, and renovating clothes, and formulated and agreed upon
certain minimum and uniform prices, which they, and each of them, should
thereafter charge and receive for the performance of such service. They further
agreed to assign and allot to one another the retail dyers and cleaners, who,
thereupon, were to be held, respectively, as exclusive customers. The
agreement to maintain prices and assign and allot customers has been and is
being carried into effect.

Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 USCA 1, 3) provide as

follows:

'Section 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 declared to be illegal. * * *'

' 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 State or States or foreign nations, is declared
illegal. * * *'

The words describing the activity declared to be illegal are the same in both
sections, namely, 'restraint of trade or commerce.' The contention on behalf of
appellants is that the words, being identical, should receive the same

construction in section 3 as in the preceding section 1; that section 1 rests solely

on the commerce clause of the Constitution; that the words 'trade or commerce'
in section 1 cannot be broader than the single word 'commerce' as used in that
clause; and that commerce does not include a business such as that carried on
by appellants.
8

Assuming, but not deciding, that, if the acts here charged had involved
interstate transactions, appellants would not come within the provisions of
section 1, because the scope of the words 'trade or commerce' must there be
limited by the constitutional power to regulate commerce, it does not follow
that the same words contained in section 3 should be given a like limited
construction. Most words have different shades of meaning, and consequently
may be variously construed, not only when they occur in different statutes, but
when used more than once in the same statute or even in the same section.
Undoubtedly, there is a natural presumption that identical words used in
different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.
Courtauld v. Legh, L. R., 4 Exch. 126, 130. But the presumption is not rigid
and readily yields whenever there is such variation in the connection in which
the words are used as reasonably to warrant the conclusion that they were
employed in different parts of the act with different intent. Where the subjectmatter to which the words refer is not the same in the several places where they
are used, or the conditions are different, or the scope of the legislative power
exercised in one case is broader than that exercised in another, the meaning
well may vary to meet the purposes of the law, to be arrived at by a
consideration of the language in which those purposes are expressed, and of the
circumstances under which the language was employed. See State v. Knowles,
90 Md. 646, 654, 45 A. 877, 49 L. R. A. 695; Henry v. Trustees, 48 Ohio St.
671, 676, 30 N. E. 1122; Feder v. Goetz (C. C. A.) 264 F. 619, 624; James et al.
v. City of Newberg et al., 101 Or. 616, 619, 201 P. 212; In re County Seat of
Linn County, 15 Kan. 500, 527.

It is not unusual for the same word to be used with different meanings in the
same act, and there is no rule of statutory construction which precludes the
courts from giving to the word the meaning which the Legislature intended it
should have in each instance. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Gaines (C. C.) 3 F. 266,
277, 278. Thus, for example, the meaning of the word 'Legislature,' used
several times in the Federal Constitution, differs according to the connection in
which it is employed, depending upon the character of the function which that
body in each instance is called upon to exercise. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355,
52 S. Ct. 397, 76 L. Ed. , decided April 11, 1932. And, again in the
Constitution, the power to regulate commerce is conferred by the same words
of the commerce clause with respect both to foreign commerce and interstate

commerce. Yet the power when exercised in respect of foreign commerce may
be broader than when exercised as to interstate commerce. In the regulation of
foreign commerce an embargo is admissible; but it reasonably cannot be
thought that, in respect of legitimate and unobjectionable articles, an embargo
would be admissible as a regulation of interstate commerce, since the primary
purpose of the clause in respect of the latter was to secure freedom of
commercial intercourse among the states. See Groves et al. v. Slaughter, 15 Pet.
449, 505, 10 L. Ed. 800; Southern Steamship Company v. Portwardens, 6 Wall.
31, 32, 33, 18 L. Ed. 749; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 492, 24 S. Ct.
349, 48 L. Ed. 525. Compare Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States, 261 U. S.
514, 520, 521, 43 S. Ct. 428, 67 L. Ed. 778.
10

Section 1 having been passed under the specific power to regulate commerce,
its meaning necessarily must be limited by the scope of that power; and it may
be that the words 'trade' and 'commerce' are there to be regarded as
synonymous. On the other hand, section 3, so far as it relates exclusively to the
District of Columbia, could not have been passed under the power to regulate
interstate or foreign commerce, since that provision of the section deals not
with such commerce but with restraint of trade purely local in character. The
power exercised, and which gives vitality to the provision, is the plenary power
to legislate for the District of Columbia, conferred by article 1, 8, cl. 17, of
the Constitution. Under that clause, Congress possesses, not only every
appropriate national power, but, in addition, all the powers of legislation which
may be exercised by a state in dealing with its affairs, so long as other
provisions of the Constitution are not infringed. Capital Traction Company v.
Hof, 174 U. S. 1, 5, 19 S. Ct. 580, 43 L. Ed. 873. Undoubtedly, under that
extensive power, it was within the competency of Congress to prohibit and
penalize the acts with which appellants are here charged; and the only question
is whether by section 3 it has done so.

11

A consideration of the history of the period immediately preceding and

accompanying the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and of the mischief
to be remedied, as well as the general trend of debate in both Houses, sanctions
the conclusion that Congress meant to deal comprehensively and effectively
with the evils resulting from contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in
restraint of trade, and to that end to exercise all the power it possessed. In
passing section 1, Congress could exercise only the power conferred by the
commerce clause; but, in passing section 3, it had unlimited power, except as
restricted by other provisions of the Constitution. We are, therefore, free to
interpret section 3 dissociated from section 1 as though it were a separate and
independent act, and, thus viewed, there is no rule of statutory construction
which prevents our giving to the word 'trade' its full meaning, or the more

extended of two meanings, whichever will best manifest the legislative

purpose. See United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 396, 18 L. Ed. 830;
Sacramento Nav. Co. v. Salz, 273 U. S. 326, 329, 330, 47 S. Ct. 368, 71 L. Ed.
663.
12

We perceive no reason for holding that Congress used the phrase 'restraint of
trade' in section 3 in a narrow sense. It is true that the word 'trade' is often
employed as importing only traffic in the buying, selling, or exchanging of
commodities; but it is also true that frequently, if not generally, the word is
used in a broader sense. This is pointed out in The Schooner Nymph, 1 Sumn.
516, 517, 518, 18 Fed. Cas. 506, No. 10,388. Construing section 32 of the
Coasting and Fishery Act of 1793, c. 8, 1 Stat. 305, 316 (46 USCA 325)
which declares that any licensed ship, etc., which shall be employed in any
other 'trade' than that for which she is licensed, shall be forfeited, Mr. Justice
Story in that case said:

13

'The argument for the claimant insists, that 'trade' is here used in its most
restrictive sense, and as equivalent to traffic in goods, or buying and selling in
commerce or exchange. But I am clearly of opinion, that such is not the true
sense of the word, as used in the 32d section. In the first place, the word 'trade'
is often, and indeed generally, used in a broader sense, as equivalent to
occupation, employment, or business, whether manual or mercantile. Wherever
any occupation, employment, or business is carried on for the purpose of profit,
or gain, or a livelihood, not in the liberal arts or in the learned professions, it is
constantly called a trade. Thus, we constantly speak of the art, mystery, or trade
of a housewright, a shipwright, a tailor, a blacksmith, and a shoe-maker, though
some of these may be, and sometimes are, carried on without buying or selling
goods.'

14

A like view was taken by Pollock, B., in Bank of India v. Wilson, L. R., 3
Exch. Div. 108, 119-120.1 See, also, Buckelew v. Martens (N. J. Err. & App.)
156 A. 436; American Laundry Co. v. E. & W. Dry-Cleaning Co., 199 Ala.
154, 74 So. 58; Campbell v. Motion Picture M. Op. Union, 151 Minn. 220, 231,
232, 186 N. W. 781.

15

We think the word 'trade' was used in section 3 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
in the general sense attributed to it by Justice Story, and, at least, is broad
enough to include the acts of which the government complains.

16

Decree affirmed.

One of the earliest decisions under the common law is Diers Case, 2 Henry V,
5, pl. 26, which arose in the time of Henry V (1414). There a weaver had bound
himself for a moderate consideration not to follow his craft within the town for
a limited time. Before the expiration of the time, however, his necessities sent
him back to the loom, and an action against him for damages was brought. The
learned judge, in deciding the case, not only held the obligation to be void, but
quite evidently considered it criminal as well. With some display of feeling he
said: 'The obligation is void as being contrary to the common law and by
G_____ if the plaintiff were here he should go to prison until he paid a fine to
the King.' And even a century or two later, when the rule in respect of contracts
in restrain of trade had become less strict, in Mitchell v. Reynolds, 1 Peere
Williams 181, 193, Parker, C. J., referring to Diers Case, approved the
indignation of the judge, 'tho' not his manner of expressing it.'