The Dec. 17, 1906 NYT has a demoralizing letter to the editor that, notwithstanding our theoretical and empirical advancements in the field of economics and the relatively large numbers of people who have taken at least one economics class in their young adulthood, might still be written today:

[Y]ou use the expression "we have combinations in restraint of trade." Why "restraint of trade"?

Manufacturers have sometimes been called upon to meet ruinous competition - competition that might cripple one or more factories and by so doing cause distress to communities or parts of communities. Somewhere along the downward scale of such competition combinations have been effected; such combinations have invariably been wholesome and should be legitimate and could not produce the proper effect if they were in "restraint of trade."

If the expression "combinations in restraint of vicious competition" were used it would be nearer correct, but why in "restraint of trade."?

The appeal to the idea that ruinous competition might harm a factory, or perhaps an entire industry, and therefore must be precluded is the language of the protectionist, even if protection comes in subtle forms. It is bad enough that cartels would be justified in such a manner in 1906. Shame on those who use the same language today.