St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-17
HOUSE FILE NO. 264
Meilicke Defends Els Measure
to Prevent Restraint Of
Trade.
MARKETS MUST BE FREE.
He Backs Up the Crying
Needs With Legal Au-
thorities.
DOWN GREEDY MONOPOLIES
Is the Panaeea Prescribed by
This Timely Meas
= ure.
DOWN GREEDY MONoPoLIEs

a vigorous fight for mis- measure that
stitutional measure to prevent I'M
lawful restraint in the traffic of food
products. There has been no law
enacted as yet to carry out the pro-
vision of the constitution. The
Meilicke bill is designed to enforce
the wishes of the people in this re-
spect. Mr.. Meillcke has brought
ability and persistence to bear in
support of his bill and it's success,
thus far, is due to his efforts and
able presentation of it's merits in
committee and elsewhere. The bill
has passed the house and is now
pending in the senate. He has
shown his ability to cope with all
the able talent who have been pitted
against him in arguing the matter
before the committees. A vigorous
fight is being made against the meas
ure by the elevator men of Min
neapolis who blong to the board of
trade. Mr.. Meilicke has prepared
the following legal brief in defense
of his measure:
House File 264, to protect the freedom
of markets, was framed to embrace
the common law principles of fore
stalling the market, and the principle
embodied in section 30, article 4, of the
constitution. That part of the bill
which contains the principles of this
section of the constitution is, of course,
constitutional. Any part of the bill
which appears to be broader than that
constitutional provision is based upon
the common law against forestalling
the market, which is not in force in Min
nesota, because all crimes in Minneso-
ia are statutory and because the COM
mon law crime of forestalling the
market. as expressed by 5 and Edw
VI, CHI. IA, was abolished in England
and never adopted in America, except
by statute in many of the old states
At common law the crime of forestall-
ing the market was defined to be any
device, practice, conspiracy, by acts.
words or news. to enhance the market
price of merchandise or victuals; s
Coke Inst. 1856; Russ. Or. $40; Bl. Com.
139; Hawk. p. c. 234
In Bacon's Arrangement A. Vol. 1876,
forestalling the market includes all
enhance or restrict trade or commerce.
such as engrossing. regrating, spread
ing false rumors; buying and selling
again the same thing in the same mar
ket; spreading rumors of crop failure:
buying and selling in gross; engrossing
+ the whole commodity to enhance the
price; buying before the victuals are
In the market; making any notion
word, letter. message, or otherwise
to enhance the price; dissuade any one
coming to market.
These provisions were incorporate
in the and Edw. VI, CHI IA, as well
as the prior English statutes on this
subject. The principle being, that If
any person or persons interfered with
or buying or controlling any food
product coming to any market, he was
| deemed a forestaller. If he got control
| Chat is, cornereO after brought to
market, he was a regrator. If he en-
| crossed the same Chat is, monopo-
| l1zed, he was an engrosser.
In this country, forestalling the mar
ket mostly takes the form of trusts,
| pools, corners and associations to be
| the medium by which the product ia
| marketed, debating the commissions
| 10 be charged and preventing aUy
other medium, thus creating a virtual
monopoly. Such associations and con-
duct have been held unlawful, but not
criminal, unless made so by statute.
Morris Run Coal Co. VS.. Barclay Coal
Co., 6S Pa st. 173; Salt Co. VS.. Guthrie.
80 Ost. 666; Mallary vs. OF! Works q
Am. and Eng. Carp. Ca. 478; Wright VS..
Crabbs. 78 Ind. 4S7; Sampson VS.. Shaw.
| 1Ol Mass. AS; Arnot VS.. Coal Co. 6S N.
Y. 558; Kauntz VS.. Oil Co., u Pa. ST.
| 1872.
In consequence of the result being To
monopolize the product, and thus en-.
nance the price, whether 1t be FORE
stalling as at common law or trusts
! pools, corners or associa tions; the
states of Maryland, North Carolina,
| Tennessee, Arkansas and Texas incor-
porated in their constitutions provisions
prohibiting monopoly of any kind. and
this doctrine is illustrated In the
slaughter house cases, 16 Wall, 102. and
| the line of adjudications in these states
upon acts concerning food products
are based upon the common law prin.
ciples concerning forestalling the mar.
ket; the rule being as at common law
any act or conduct by any person oil
| persons interfering with the freedom
of markets is a crime against public
policy.
Forestalling the market as under.
stood at common law is a wrong pei
Sc, and as such can be punished by
statute without any constitutional pro
vision, as was done in Virginia.
The Minnesota constitutional amend
ment aims at a combination Of per.
sons, by providing that any combina
ton of persons to monopolize the mar
ket for food products, or interfere witt
or restrict the freedom of markets fol
| food products, shall be punished as
the legislature may prescribe. The de
feet of this provision is, that it is lin
| tied to combination of persons. Al
common law and under and Edward
VI, chapter IA, any monopoly of fooC
products, or any interference with OF
restriction of the freedom of markets
for food products, constituted the
crime of forestalling the market. anC
could be committed by one person OF
by combination Of persons; the pivot
of the offense being the interference
with the freedom Of markets for foo6
products. This is also the pivot in the
constitutional amendment, and the on.
iy difference between the common law
principle in the crime of forestalline
the market and this constitutional
provision is the persons who may be
punished. The rule of constitutional
construction is that when a class is
pointed out to be punished for a crime
it does not exclude any other class, as
in this case, when the constitution
says that a combination of persons
shall be punished, it does not mean
that a single individual shall not be
| punished if he commits the same
| wrong. The reason is that rights are
the inherent and inalienable basis of
individuals and government, and any
| infraetion Is a wrong and punishable;
hence. as it is a right to have the
/ freedom of markets, it is a wrong to
| interfere with or restrict such free
| dom, as was the rule at common law,
whether done by one person or a COM
| binaton. 1t therefore follows that this