The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-03-11
STATUTES OF THIS STATE
y ELEVEN OTHERS IN CONTRA
yENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Opinion by Justice Harlan that VIII
BE Read with Interest by
Many Persons

tional 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 Thos.
Connolly and others against the Union
Sewer Pipe Company, of Ohio. and was de-
livered by Justice Harlan.
The case grew out of the sale of pipe
by the pipe company to Connolly and
others, who, after securing it, declined to
make paymen on the ground that the pipe
company is an Illegal combination for the
restraint Of trade under the common law,
because it combines a number of pipe manu-
featuring concerns; that it is a combina-
ton in violation of the Sherman antitrust
law and further a violation of the anti
trust law of Illinois. The first two conten-
tions received very slight consideration,
the court holding that even if the allega-
tions were true they could not justly pre-
vent the corporation selling its property.
The opinion, therefore, was based on the
third plea, which Justice Harlan said would
be valid if the state law could be held to
be valid, as there could be no doubt
of the purport of the act. Under that law
the corporation could be dissolved If the law
Is valid. He quoted the law at length, lay
ing especial stress on the ninth section, ex-
empting farm products. concluding that this
provision is anita gOnistic to the provisions
of the Constitution granting equal protec-
ton to all under the law. He also held
that the exempting clause is so interviewer
with other portions of the statute as to
render it impossible to eliminate it from
the law as an entirety, and held that the
law must be held TO be invalid.
ON a WRIT OF ERROR.
Justice Harlan said that the case had
come to the Supreme Court on a writ Of
error in the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Northern district of ILL
nois, which had held the State antitrust
Law TO be unconstitutional because of the
provision discriminating in favor of farm
products. 1t grew out Of actions by the
Pipe Company to recover on negotiable
notes given by Connolly and William E..
Dee for pipe received by them under con-
tract. Section 9 of the Illinois law upon
which Justice Harlan's opinion was based
is to the effect that the provisions of this
act shall not apply to agricultural products
or live stock while in the hands of the pro-
Queer.
First stating what could be lone under
the statute without the exempting provi-
sion, Judge Harlan said: That the ar
rangement or combination between the I'm
ion Sewer Pipe Company and the other com
panies, corporations and firms. creating
and constituting such a trust as the Ilii-
nois statute forbids is manifest from the
evidence in the record. 1t is equally clear
that If the plaintiff was an Illinois cor
poration, its charter could be forfeited and
an end put 10 its corporate ex-
istence by proceedings instituted by
the attorney general of the State.
!. I Is di tIo S Seear tnat oo IL the statute
liability for the pipe purchased by them
upon the ground that the plaintiff was an
illegal combination and the contracts which
it made with the defendants were void
under The statute of Illinois The statute
expressly authorizes such a defense"
He then took up the question of the
effect from the exempting section. sus-
tanning the view of the Circuit Court that
this section is %repugnant TO the Four
teenth amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, and further that il Is
so connected and interviewer with other
sections of the act as to invalidate the
entire act. Following is a portion of his
argumen in suppo of this position: 1T
combinations of capital, skill or acts. in
respect of the sale and purchase OF goods.
merchandise or commodities, whereby the
persons, firms, corporations or association
forming such combinations may control
or establish, in their discretion, the prices
of such goods. merchandise or commodity,
are hurtful to the public interests and
should be suppressed, IL is impossible to per
Ceive why like combinations in respect OF
agricultural products and live stock are not
equally hurtful. Two or more engaged i'm
selling dry goods. or groceries, or meats
or fuel, or clothing. or medicines. are. un-
W. Al1 AoA AhAc anu DIE IL
a fine, if they combine their capital. skill
or acts for the purpose of establishing,
controlling. increasing or reducing prices,
or of preventing free and unrestrained COM
petition amongst themselves or others i'm
the sale of their goods or merchandise
but their neighbors who happen 20 be agri-
culturists and live stock ~raisers. may make
combinations of that character in reference
to their grain or live stock without In
curing the prescribed penalty.
CLASS LEGISLATION.
Under what rule of permissible classic
cation can such legislation be sustained as
consistent with the equal protection of the
laws? To declare that some of the general
class engaged in domestic trade or com.
merce shall be deemed criminals If they
violate certain regulations prescribed by
the State for the purpose Of protecting the
public against Illegal combinations whfcf
have for their object the destruction oil
competition and the control of prices, ant
that others of the general class also en-
gagged IN such trade or commerce shall no
De bound TO regard those regulations, bul
may combine their capital. skill OF acts L,
destroy competition and TO control price.
Tor their benefit exclusively is so mani
testify a denial of the equal protection al
the laws that extended argument 10 tn,
establishment of that position would seen
to be unnecessary"
Justice McKenna delivered a dissenting
80 AAAaL LAa HNANAA
or operation which the Constitution re
quires in state legislation cannot be con.
strued as demanding an absolute UNIVERSAL
lty or opinion. having no regard TO differ
ent capabilities, conditions and relations
OF men. Hence classification is necessary
lie then suggested the distinction II
the Illinois case are proper anC
added: The excluded class is com,
posed OF farmers and stocl
raisers while holding the products OF live
stock produced or raised by them. The in
cluded class is composed of merchants
traders, manufacturers. all engaged In
commercial transactions. That Is, one il
composed of persons who are scattered OF
farms: the other class is composed of per
sons co-ngregated in cities and towns. no
only Of persons, but Of corporation organi
cations. In the difference of these situa.
tons. and in other differences which vii
occur TO any reflection, might not the Leg
islature see difference I'm opportunities and
powers between the classes in regard TO ths
prohibited acts2"
The decision OF the court in effect de
+ clares unconstitutional the antitrust law:
OF Georgia. Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana
Michigan. Mississippi. Montana, Nebraska
North Carolina. South Dakota. Tennessee
Texas and Wisconsin. In each OF thes,
States there is an exemption in favor o.
live stock and agricultural products in tn,
hands OF the raiser or prOducer. or OF Ia
Dor organizations. Under the rulings o
the court an antitrust law 10 be constitu
tional must apply unfortunately TO al
combinations. with no exemptions or excep
tions whatever.