Document: 362 U.S. 458 80 S.Ct. 847 4 L.Ed.2d 880 MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America. UNITED America, Appellant, v. INC. Nos. 62, 73. Argued Jan. 19, 20, 1960. Decided May 2, Messrs. [Syllabus from pages 458-459 intentionally omitted] Herbert A. Bergson and William J. Hughes, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellant in No. 62 appellee Mr. Philip Elman, Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is a civil antitrust action brought by United States Federal District Court against an agricultural co-operative, Maryland Virginia Milk Producers Association, Inc. The Association supplies about 86% milk purchased all dealers metropolitan area, has as members 2,000 dairy farmers. complaint charged that had: (1) attempted to monopolize had monopolized interstate trade commerce fluid Maryland, Columbia violation § 2 Sherman Act;1 (2) through contracts agreements combined conspired with Embassy Dairy others eliminate foreclose competition same market area 3 Act;2 (3) bought assets Dairy, largest dealer which competed Association's dealers, effect acquisition might be substantially lessen or tend create monopoly 7 Clayton Act.3 chief defense set up was that, because its being cooperative composed exclusively farmers, 6 Act4 §§ Capper-Volstead Act5 completely exempted immunized it laws respect charges made Government's complaint. concluded after arguments 'an entirely exempt provisions laws, both very existence well activities, provided does not enter into conspiracies combinations persons who are producers commodities.' 167 F.Supp. 45, 52. Accordingly court dismissed Act monopolization charge, where alleged have acted combination others, but upheld right Government go trial on they involved activities owners other were producers. After found latter two entered decree ordering divest itself within reasonable time acquired cancel ancillary acquisition. 799; 168 880. refused grant additional relief asked for. It this refusal dismissal charge appealed directly under Expediting Act.6 similarly review judgments charge. We noted probable jurisdiction, 360 927, 79 1447, 1450, 1541, treat appeals opinion. argument exemption based Act, authorizes Secretary Agriculture issue cease-and-desist order upon finding restrained such extent price commodity been 'unduly enhanced.'7 contention provision intended give primary thereby exclude any prosecutions at Act. unequivocally rejected Borden Co., 308 188, 206, 60 182, 191, 84 L.Ed. 181, full consideration legislative history we now again. adhere reasoning holding point. 5 also argues without regard demonstrate purpose wholly associations laws. In case held neither nor granted immunity prosecution co-operative restrain there Although confronted do believe Congress immunize cooperatives engaged competition-stifling practices antimonopolization while making them responsible violations antitrade-restraint These sections closely overlap, kind predatory may show all.8 reasons underlying Court's apply equally 3. Acts, construed light their background, lend themselves incongruous immunity-distinction between urged here. early 1900's, when growing effectiveness, widespread concern mere organization farmers mutual help often considered Some state courts sustained cooperatives,9 result eventually passed Acts authorizing existence.10 bar transactions 1914 inserted exempting organizations, along labor unions, section, out below,11 relating unions manifest 'a congressional exempt' laws,12 language section indicates broader cooperatives. shows no more than allow act together 'held illegal restraint trade, laws,' otherwise been. interpretation supported House Senate Committee Reports bill.13 Thus, group acting single entity association cannot 'from lawfully carrying legitimate objects thereof' (emphasis supplied), support gives freedom engage will. See King, 229 F. 275; 250 908, 910. Cf. 203—205, 190—191, 181. 1922 extended capital stock previously covered section.14 Section among 'the objects' farmer organizations 'collectively processing, preparing market, handling, marketing' products common marketing agencies 'necessary purposes.' reasonably clear general philosophy simply individual should given, entities, unified competitive advantage—and responsibility—available businessmen corporations entities. As Report said: 8 'Instead granting class privilege, aims equalize existing privileges changing law applicable ordinary business so can take advantage it.'15 9 make possible farmer-producers organize together, policy, fix prices will sell produce, carry like corporation violating suggest desire vest unrestricted power achieve preying independent producers, processors intent own businesses way. hearings Agriculture, given large measure authority Solicitor his Department, testified would authorize Act.16 And assured that: 10 'In event authorized bill shall anything forbidden Antitrust subject penalties imposed law.'17 11 contrary inferences could drawn some parts history, satisfied part just quoted correctly interpreted did leave co-operatives free suppress cooperative. Therefore, turn case. 12 Dismissal.—The charging '(t)hreatened undertaken diverse actions induce compel purchase defendant (Association), induced assisted acquire outlets' purchasing Association. '(e)xcluded, eliminated, including producers' affiliated defendant, supplying dealers.' Supporting statement particulars listed number instances interfere truck shipments nonmembers' milk, attempt during 1939—1942 Washington switch non-Association Baltimore market. included boycott feed farm supply store owner, owned Alexandria dairy, compelled buy using leverage dairy's indebtedness allegations particulars, only out, anticompetitive far outside 'legitimate if proved, constitute fact, indeed, really dispute liability section. error dismiss 13 Judgment.—In 1954 Washington. constituted prohibits acquiring another competition. A before motive to: purchaser area; force former either join ship Baltimore, thus bringing diverting competing market; prime government contract bidding; increase control On these findings, amply evidence, properly conclude, did, tended competition, therefore 7.18 14 leaves protected last paragraph pertinent provides 15 'Nothing contained duly consummated pursuant * statutory vesting *.'19 16 contends 'consummated Agriculture.' trouble 'statutory provision' vests approve transaction anti-trust circumstances While 'shall deemed lawful' 'not States,' agreement here.20 17 Judgment.—The violated engaging conspiracy Court, consent parties, decided evidence offered crucial element concerted Embassy's containing compete years, Also, particularly combination, showing long spirited rivalry one hand other. 'unhappy' cutting generally 'disruptive' 'thorn side many years.' There emphasized paid transfer excess actual intrinsic value property purchased.' 799, 806. readopting findings regarding motives results acquisition, see page 854, supra, three following charge: 'that complained foreclosure competition,' restraining trade,'21 unreasonable violative resulted (Association).' (168 881.) basis then involving constitutes Act.' 880, 881, 882. 18 facts classic unless, contends, Embassy' judgment Act's necessary agreements' process, handle producer-members. useful processing assume, contended, use, more, permitted lawful But even pattern conduct unlawful Act.22 here, viewed context merely advance permissible business; according court's understand them, usefulness weapon competitors area. hold privilege Capper- Volstead grants affairs collectively include combine competitors23 use position lever further processors. 19 Adequacy Relief.—The appeal directed requires 'dispose unit going (Embassy) tangible intangible, July 26, 1954, replacements therefor,' 'good faith' preserve 'as good condition possible.' require dispose 'all used' operation, prohibit operating period divestiture, prevent future distributors prior approval Government, 'visitation rights' records employees. view adequately matters requirement subsequent orders occasion necessitated. formulation decrees largely left discretion court, reason reject effective undoing fact retains cause orders, visitation appropriate. Associated Press States, 326 1, 22—23, 65 1416, 1425—1426, 89 2013. 20 Accordingly, affirmed, reversed remanded trial. 21 Affirmed part, part. 2: 'Every person monopolize, conspire persons, several foreign nations, guilty misdemeanor, and, conviction thereof, punished fine exceeding fifty thousand dollars, imprisonment year, said punishments, court.' 26 Stat. 209 (1890), amended, U.S.C. U.S.C.A. 2. 3: contract, form trust otherwise, conspiracy, Territory State declared illegal. *' 3, declares prohibition 'among States.' 1. longer relevant 7: 'No acquire, indirectly, whole share jurisdiction Trade Commission commerce, line country, monopoly. (independent regulatory commissions) Commission, Secretary, Board.' 38 731 (1914), 18, 18. 17, forth note 11, infra. 1: 'Persons production planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut fruit growers associations, corporate stock, engaged. Such common; purposes *.' 42 388 (1922), 291, 291. 7, 32 823 (1903), 29, 29. 'If monopolizes restrains product unduly enhanced thereof (after 'show cause' hearing he direct) cease desist trade. enforced Attorney General obeyed association. 292, 292. Klor's, Inc., Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 207, 211, 705, 708, 741; Socony-Vacuum Oil 310 150, 226, 59, 811, 846, 1129; Standard Co. New Jersey 221 59—60, 31 502, 515, 55 619. See, e.g., Reeves Decorah Farmers' Cooperative Society, 1913, 160 Iowa 194, 140 N.W. 844, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 1104; Burns Wray Grain 1918, Colo. 425, 176 P. 487, A.L.R. 1179; Ford Chicago Shippers' Ass'n, 1895, 155 Ill. 166, 39 N.E. 651, 27 L.R.A. 298. Contra, Burley Tobacco Society Gillaspy, 1912, 51 Ind.App. 583, 100 89. Hanna, Immunities Associations, Law Contemp.Prob. 488—490 (1948); Associations Public, 29 Mich.L.Rev. 148, 163—165 (1930); Jensen, Bill Rights Rocky Mt.L.Rev. 184—189 (1948). Att'y Gen. Nat'l Comm. Rep. (1955), 306—313; Note, 57 921 (1959). statutes collected Co-operative n. Harv.L.Rev. 87, 89, (1924). Connolly Union Sewer Pipe 1902, 184 540, 556—558, 22 431, 438—439, 46 679, Illinois statute unconstitutional, dissent per McKenna, J., 565, 571, 442, 444, overruled Tigner Texas, 1940, 141, 879, 1124. 6: 'The human article commerce. Nothing forbid operation labor, agricultural, horticultural instituted help, having conducted profit, thereof; laws.' 17. Allen Bradley Local 325 797, 805, 1533, 1538, 1939; Duplex Printing Deering, 254 443, 468—469, 41 172, 177, 349. Hutcheson, 312 219, 61 463, 85 788. previous decisions empower dissolution your committee feels doubt removed legality operations way associations.' (Emphasis supplied.) H.R.Rep. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 16; S.Rep. 698, 12. Congressmen opposed stock. 'Under (now 6) farmers' organized law.' Pt. 4, 4. id., 10. 24, 67th 1st Department 'opinion want monopolies unfair certainly it, get bill. (T)hese allowed adopt means methods conducting business,' 'engaged practice prevented people selling say competition.' effect. Hearings Subcommittee Judiciary H.R. 2373, 203, 204, 205. Op. cit., 15, 807—808. supra. Agricultural Adjustment 8b, 608b, 608b. 198—202, 188—190, 181; Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 533, 560, 59 993, 1006, 83 1446; & Producers' 90 681, 688. Griffith, 334 100, 105, 68 941, 944, 92 1236. Steel 495, 525, 1107, 1123, 1533; Paramount Pictures, 131, 173, 915, 936, 1260. Schine Chain Theatres, 110, 119, 947, 952, 1245. 23 Producers, 145 151.

Category: 7