The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-03-11
KNOCKED OUT BY COURT.
The Illinois Antitrust Bill is Dc
 clared Unconstitutional.

Washington. March 10.-The United States Supreme Court today decided the Illinois Anti-Trust statute to be uncon- stitutional because of the provision of the law exempting agricultural products and live stock from the operations of the law. The decision was rendered in the case of Thomas Connolly and others against the Union Sewer Pipe Company Of Ohio. and was delivered by Justice Harlan a
 The ease grew out of the sale of pipe by the Pipe Company to Connolly and others, who after securing it, declined to mako payment on the ground that the
 Pipe Company Is an iuegal corporation for the restraint of trade under the com of pipe manufacturing concerns; that 1t is combination in violation of the trust law of the State of Illinois.
 Justice Harlan quoted the Illinois anti trust law at length. laying especial stress upon the ninth section. exempting farm products, concluding that this provision Is antagonistic to the provisions of the Constitution granting equal protection to exempting clause is so Mterwoven with other portions of the statute as to ren- der 1t impossible to eliminate 1t from the law as an entirely and therefore held that the entire law must be held to be invalid.
 First stating what could be done under the statute without the exempting pro- vision. Justice Harlan said:
 That the arrangement or combination and the other companies. corporations and firms created and constituted such a trust as the Illinois statue forbids is manifest from the evidence In the record. It Is equally clear that If the plaintiff was a Illinois corporation. it's charter could be forfeited and an end put to It's corporate existence by, proceedings insti- tuted by the Attorney General of the State. It is also clear that If the statute Is valid, the defendants could plead non- liability for the pipe purchased by them upon the ground that the plaintiff was an. illegal combination and the contracts which 1t made with the defendants were void under the statue of Illinois. The statute expressly authorizes such a de- fense."
 He then took the question of the effect from the exempting section, sustaining the view of the Circuit Court that this section Is repugnant to the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States and further that 1t Is so connected and interwoven with other sec- tions of the act as to invalidate the en- tire act. Following is a portion of the argument in support of this position: '"If combinations of capital, skill or acts, in respect of the sale and purchase of goods, merchandise or commodities, or associations forming such combina- ton may control or establish in their discretion, the prices of such goods. mer- chandise or commodities, are hurtful to the public interests and should be sup pressed, it is impossible to perceive why like combinations in respect of agricui- tural products and live stock are not equally hurtful. To declare that some of the general class engaged in domestic trade or commerce shall be deemed crim- inals If they violate certain regulations prescribed by the State for the purpose of protecting the public against illegal Onrv tNir1at uyhf fnh oh ject the destruction of competition and the control of prices and that others of the general class also engaged in such trade or commerce shall not be bound to regard those regulations, is so manifestly denial of the equal protection of the laws that extended argument to estab- fish that position would seem unneces- sarv"
 Judge McKenna delivered a dissenting opinion. He contended that the equality of operation which the Constitution re- quires in State legislation cannot be con strued as demanding an absolute uni versatility of operation, having no regard to different capabilities. conditions and relations of men. Hence classification is necessary. He then suggested that the distinctions made in the Illinois statute class is composed of farmers and stock raisers who are scattered on farms: the other class is compose of persons con gregated in cities.
 Tn the dlnerence or these situations, and in other differences which will oc- cur to any reflection" he asks. might not the Legislature see differences in op- portunities and powers between the classes in regard to the prohibited acts?"
 The decision of the court declares un- constitutional the antitrust laws of Georgia. Illinois. Indiana. Louisiana. Ten nessee, Texas and Wisconsin. In each of these States there is an exemption in favor of live stock and agricultural pro- ducts in the hands. of the raiser or pro- ducer or of labor organizations. Under the rulings of the court an antitrust law to be constitutional must apply ndis- crimiuatciy to all combinations with no exceptions whatever