The age-herald., 1902-03-11
Supreme Court Declares Illinois
 Statute Unconstitutional
AFFECTS MANY OTHER STATES
Objectionable Clause Is That Certain Agricultural Glasses Are Exempt From Provisions of the Law.
 Cannot Discriminate.

Washington; March 1O.-The United States Supreme Court today decided the Illinois antitrust statute to be unconsti- tutional because of the provision or the law exempting agricultural products and live stocks from the operation of the law The decision was rendered in the case of Thomas Connolly and others against th3/Union Sewer Pipe Company of ohio' and was delivered by Justice Harlan.
 The case grew out of the sale of pipe by the pipe company to Connolly ana others, who after securing them declined to make payment on the ground that the pipe company is an illegal combination for the restraint of trade under the com mon law. because 1t combines number of pipe manufacturing concerns; that 1t is continuation in violation or the anti- trust jaw of the state of Illinois.
 Justice Harlan quoted the Illinois anti trust law at length, laying especial stress upon the ninth section exempting 1arm rroducts, concluding that this provision Is antagonisti3 to the provision or the con stitution granting equal pr otection to all under the law. He also held that the ex- empting clause is so interwoven with other portions of the statute as to render impossible to eliminate it from the law as entirety. and therefore held that the entire law must be held to be invalid.
 Justice Harlan's Reasons.
 First stating what could be done under the statute without the exempting provi- sion. Justice Harlin said:
 n,,k al1i ot tINV1 betweeA the Union Sewer Pipe Company and the other companies, corporations and firms, created and constituted such a trust as the Illinois statute forbids Is manifest from the evidence In the record. It Is equally clear that if the. plaintiff was an 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 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 un- der the statute of Illinois, The statute expressly authorizes such a defense"
 
 | effect from the exempting section sustain ing the view of the circuit court that this | section Is repugnant to the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the l United States and further that 1t Is so l connected and interwoven with other | sections of the act as to invaldate the entire act. Following Is a portion of his | argument in support of this position: Argument Supporting Position. "If combinations of capital, skill or acts, in respect of the sale and purchase of goods, merchandise or commodities. whereby the persons, firms, corporations or associations forming such combination may control or establish in their discre- ton, the prices of such goods, merchan- disc or commodities, are hurtful to the public interests and should be suppress ed. 1t Is impossible to perceive why like combinations in respect of agricultural 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 criminals if they violate certain regulations pre- scrioed by the state for the purpose of protecting the public against illegal com binations which have for their object the destruction of com petition and the con- trol of prices, and that others of the general class, also engaged in such trade of commerce, shall not be bound to regard those regulations, Is so manifestly a de- nial of the equal protection of the laws that extended argument to establish that position would seem unnecessary
 Justice Mckenna Dissents.
 Judge McKenna delivered a dissenting opinion. He contended that the equality of operation which the constitution re- quires in state legislation can not be construed as demanding an absolute uni versatility of opinion, 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 are proper, and added that ''the excluded class is composed of farmers and stock raisers who are scattered on farms the other class is composed of persons con- gregated in cities.
 Tn the difference of these situations and in other differences which will occur to any reflection" he asks, might not the legislature see difference in opportuni- ties and powers between the classes in regard to the prohibited acts?'
 The decision of the court in effect de- clares unconstitutional the antitrust laws of Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisi- ana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Ne braska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. In each of these states there Is an exemption of the raisers or producers or of labor organizations. Under the ruling of the court an antitrust law to be constitution al must apply indscriminately to all combinations with no exceptions what ever.