The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1902-03-20
\ ANTITRUST LAWS KILLED
The Supreme Court Holds That
ENCmptiou of Farm Products
InValiIatCS the Law,

The Supreme Court Holds That
Exemption of Farm Products
InvalidntcS the Law.
The United States supreme court
has decided the ILLINOIS antitrust
statute to be unconstitutional because
| of the provision Of the law eNcmpting
| 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.
| The decision Of the court in effect
declares unconstitutional the antitrust
laws of Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
| Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee. Texas and
Wisconsin. In each of these States
there is an exemption III favor Of live
stock and agricultural products in the
hands of the raiser or the producer, or
of labor organizations.
| Under the ruling of the court an
antitrust law TO be constitutional must
apply ndiscriminately to all combina.
tons, with no exemptions or cNcep-
| tiOns whatever.
First stating whaS could be done un-
der the statute without the cXcmpting
provision, Justice Harlan said:
That the arrangement or combina-
ton between the Union Sewer Pine
Company and the other companies,
corporations and firms, created and
constituted such trust as the Illinois
statute forbids manifest from the evil
dcncc in the record. 1t is equally
clear that if the plaintir was an Illinois
corporation it's charter could be for
+ fcltcd and an end put to its corporate
existence by proceedings instituted by
, tho attorney general of the Slate. II
is also clear that il the statute is valid
, the defendants could plead nOn-liabl-
. ity for the pipe purchased by them up
on the ground that the plainliIT was
an illegal combination and the con-
, tracts which it made with the dcfcn.
dants were void under the statute of
Illinois. The statute expressly author
ICES such defense"
, He then took up the question of the
, effect of the cXcmptiny section, sus-
tanning the view OF the circuit court
that this section is repuynant TO the
fourteenth amendment Of the consti-
'""'"" "' '''e nNeu SHhcs hhd, iuf-
".''' ""A' II i :" e"nhtc'eo ana inter-
. ''N"'' "'"-' ""'''. st''"Hs Nl lnc act
III * lnrMhaAit the entire act.
: "',.' ..'! -. "!"ti "' MS aESu-
{ '''''', u "",'''":' ~ "--.s ."S!noh;
.' .,,, ,.',,,,'' rAi'.'a.' SAi'' oI
.,,,., rr ,,,',n' ''' ',Hu HuE'
J. rnr,,,, w.,,n.,,.,, 49,, -'E ~ -Nti''
,.,r,,,r.,.,.,,,, ~ :. - IL
n,. ''.,''''','1s -: = :
,,.,,'u,, -, ,,,.,., ,,,.,..,,; y" "E
,,,,.,,.,.,,, ,,,,..,.,, ....'' ~
.., a., .,.,' - - - 49,
49,. ,,.,,, : -. ,.'.,-,.,,:,& =. =. .; g.
-. >, .,....',,: H.. -. .--- ,',''
,.... ..:,....,, .., - l :
>:y =. ,,i,, ..n ~. .rn.,' :.
y, ..l.s,s ~, .,,,,-:, ('| 80, ,.>t
,as. e,...y.G -, IG,,r.,I. ,.:J. a.
tll.,,,.,,r .,,a# =. aE.,,rd <..;','1-
,>,y,c. yi,r..,, .i,1 y. '""''
>c.,.ti; Vic l,.,. f,,, ,I.r ,'' r.
o,,,ec,,py III. ,,ni,Ii[ ,y.,i,,at rIi, ;Ii,oI 80
tl,u,;,.,:,, ',,,. yhi,J i,.,,n , I'r ., ';'H"'
I.t,,l,. tc.,,ur,,,,,, ,f ,.',,,,',,,i'' t''' w,
| Inc r,,,,,J "a ,,,ir,.. ..,I H., ,, anu
" P''"'", anu tihl oLhcIH