During the late nineteenth century, the federal courts' interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act had the effect of

While the Sherman Antitrust Act aimed to promote fair competition and regulate monopolistic practices, its primary effect was not the regulation of interstate trade itself. Instead, it focused on addressing anti-competitive behaviors, which often included labor actions rather than the regulation of trade directly.

Contrary to this choice, the interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act did not result in relief for striking workers. In many cases, courts ruled against workers who were striking for better conditions, thus providing no legal support or relief for their actions.

Although the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to eliminate monopolistic trusts, its application was often inconsistent, and many trusts remained operational during the late nineteenth century. Courts were more inclined to target labor unions than to effectively dismantle these trusts.

Railroad rebates were a specific pricing strategy used by railroads to gain competitive advantages, but the Sherman Antitrust Act did not primarily focus on eliminating such practices. The Act's enforcement was more centered on labor and monopolistic behavior rather than directly targeting rebates.