Some interesting information, tho I cannot claim to have read the whole thing closely. In inveighing against the Associated Press (see for example my #7), I have relied on Adam Smith, but it is clear that not only Sherman but many other acts, before and after the Norman Conquest, attest to the moral rejection of monopolies.A10, it seems according to “Dubious Origins” linked above that your suspicions about the constitutionality of Sherman were shared vociferously in 1890 by Senator George, who the article says was vindicated by events but who was ignored by everyone else in Congress.
I sympathize with your desire to have someone critique your analysis; I have wished for more substantive critique of the analysis scantily outlined in my #7. Unfortunately I don’t seem to be the one who can pick up your challenge. I can only comment that if the AP were subjected to the kind of antitrust action which seems amply warranted by the facts, the MSM might suddenly get religion about the constitutionality of Sherman.
Just as with many other federal laws in the history of the USA, Congress basically ignored complying with the Constitutions Article V to petition the states for specific new power to make the unconstitutional (imo) Sherman Antitrust Act.
Traitor Alexander Hamiltons national bank was probably the first such piece of legislation, followed by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which was followed by the public works act of 1817 which President James Madison, generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, actually vetoed.
Low-information citizens need to stop thinking of the federal government as a king and take the Constitution out of its gift wrapping and actually start using it.