What was a goal of the sherman antitrust act of 1890?

The Sherman Antitrust Act is a competition law in effect in the United States since 1890 that gives federal authorities the right to intervene in anti-competitive business practices to prevent the formation of trusts. It forms the basis of U.S. antitrust laws.  

The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits any arrangement made by companies that restricts interstate or U.S. foreign trade. These are considered to include various formal and informal cartels, such as prices agreed between companies or production limits. It also prohibits attempts to monopolize any business in the United States to a single operator. The law empowers the federal court to order the dissolution of companies found to be in violation of these regulations. Offenders can be punished with fines or imprisonment. Injured parties have the right to claim triple compensation for their losses.

The Sherman Antitrust Act was the first law passed by Congress to prevent an anti-competitive concentration of economic power. The law is named after Senator John Sherman, who specialized in economic regulation. The law enacted in 1890 was hardly applied to large monopolies in its early years because the letter of the law was interpreted narrowly. Instead, it was used against trade unions, as many courts considered them to be anti-competitive groups prohibited by law. During Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1901–1909), the law began to be applied more vigorously against large corporations. One famous case was the dissolution of the Standard Oil company by a court decision into 34 separate companies in 1911.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation:

i think the answer is b.