"That scheme was his. Th[e] purpose was merely to make money for himself by selling to the corporate defendants indulgences to sin against the Sherman act." Wayman organized what came to be known as the "Bathtub Trust." He licensed sixteen corporations, which became defendants in this suit along with officers of the corporate defendants. The license agreements provided for a running royalty, 80% of which would be rebated in three months if the licensee obeyed the terms of the agreement; if it did not, that 80% would be forfeited. As the lower court explained: "Each corporate defendant in this manner gave security that he would keep his bargain, or be good, as one of the licensees expressed it." Each corporate defendant promised to do three things:  The "jobber resale agreements," which each authorized jobber was required to sign, provided:  Each jobber, like each manufacturer, had to "post bail"—"give cash security that he would carry out his bargain." There was a rebate system similar to that for the manufacturers: "If he had not cut prices and had not bought ware from anyone other than the corporate defendants, at the end of the calendar year, he was entitled to receive a rebate of 5 percent on the amount paid by him during the year." Nearly 400 jobbers signed these agreements. They constituted more than four-fifths of all the jobbers in the country. It was estimated that the annual sales to the licensed jobbers was more than $8 million, so that their annual rebates were more than $40,000—which they would receive only if they obeyed the agreements. "Moreover, the agreements told the jobbers in plain words that, if they cut prices or bought ware from anybody other than the corporate defendants, none of the latter would sell them again." "[T]he makers of nearly four-fifths of the ware and more than four out of every five dealers in it become parties to the combination." The government brought a criminal suit in Detroit and a civil action in Baltimore. After there was a hung jury in the Detroit case, the government delayed its criminal case until final resolution of the civil action. The civil case was tried to a three–judge circuit court, which ruled for the government 2-1. The circuit court said that the case involved two important questions:  The defendants argued that "eyes illumined by the light of reason will see that what the defendants did was from the standpoint of the public interests good, and not evil."