The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-06-07
HITS THE TRUSTS.
State Supreme Court UphOIds
Kansas Antitrust Law.
Conviction of Secretary of Grain
Dealers ustained.
ENDS A LONG FIGHT.
Puts the Kansas Trusts on the
Defensive.
Case May Be Carried to Z. S.
Supreme Court.
Secretary Smiley Doesn't Know
What viii Be Done.
ENDS A LONG FIGHT.

WnaC VIII be Done.
The Kansas antitrust law was af-
firmed by the state supreme court to-
day.
The decision was in what is known as
the grain trust case. E. J. Smiley. sec
retary of the Kansas Grain Dealers as
sociation was arrested in Rush county
under the provisions of the antitrust
law and was convicted and nned $ouc
and given a. jail sentence of so days.
The case was appealed to the Su-
preme court and the validity of the
F'arrelly antitrust law was attacked.
This was a case of great Importance 10
Kansas farmers, as it involves the Ire
of the Kansas Grain Dealers aSSOcla-
tion insofar as the association has power
to combine to compel the farmer to sell
his grain to its members for whatever
price the association wishes to pay, and
also TO keep the farmer from shipping
his own grain if he wishes TO do 50.
The information filed against Smiley
by the county attorney OF Rush county
charged him with conspiring with four
local grain firms IN that county to con-
troll the price which the grain dealers
should pay for grain and arranging for
a pooling of the profits among the grain
dealers. This is the usual plan adopted
by the members of the State Grain Deal
ers' association in each locality. Smiley
was the referee in this case to whom
each dealer made weekly reports, and
80
The opinion in the case was written
by Chief Justice Doster, and all the
justices concur except Justice Pollock,
who writes a long dissenting opinion
The syllabus of the court is as fol-
lows:
The general language Of statutes viii
/ be limited to such persons and subjects
as it is reasonable to presume the leg
islature intended it should apply.
Objections to the constitutionality of
statutes can be made only by those 10
! whom the enactment applies and against
W hOm attempts to enforce it are made
THE making of anti-competitive trade
! agreements, as to products and mer-
! chandise bought or sold on the general
! market. is contrary to public policy, and
1 it is competent for the legislature to en-
act penal measures to prevent the max
! ing and carrying out of such agree
4 ments.
Chapter 265, laws Of 1897, known as
| the antitrust law does not conflict
/ property by lawful contract secured by
/ the federal constitution, and is a valid
/ exercise of legislative power.
An agreement entered into by all the
dealers on q certain market. limiting
I their right, severally, under stipulated
( forfeitureS or penalties TO buy all the
grain they otherwise might on such
I market is an agreement in restrai int
of trade, and falls within the penal
terms of the antitrust act Of 1897 -
In the opinion Chief Justice Doster
takes a shot at the argument of the ap-
pellant After quoting the information
against Smiley and certain provisions
of the antitrust law, he says:
THE above statute is assailed With
great Vehemence by counsel for appel
liant. Their contention is that it impos-
es such limitations upon freedom of
contract as to constitute a deprivation
Of the right of property contrary to the
guaranty of the fourteenth amendment
to the federal constitution They say
l~.f1 1.ofr, rT11f
an act to prevent unreasonable restric-
tions upon trade, it is itself such restric-
ton, and is therefore violative of the
fundamental right to acquire property
by lawful contract To enforce these
contentious many generalities of lang
uage. culled out of the reported decis-
ions and the writings of the cOmmenta-
tors. have been quoted, but no concrete
instance of holdings, by courts of last
resort, adverse to enactments Of the
character ofsthe one in question have
been cited.
The fact that the antitrust laws of
Texas and Nebraska have been knocked
out by the courts IS referred to, but
attention is called to the fact that the
| Texas law exempted from its terms the
| original producer or raiser of agricultu-
! raj products or live stock The Ne
/ braska law exempted from its provis-
! ions assemblies or associa tiOns Of labor
/ ing men" The making of these ex-
\ ceptions," continues the court, was dis
!
stituted a denial of the equal protection
| of the law-so the judges ruled"
Justice Pollock was very decided in his
dissenting opinion. In the opening para
/ graph he says:
! believing as do, no recent decision
J of this court is comparable in its con-
! sequences to the public at large, especi-
| ally the business and commercial world,
with that just announced in this case
/ convinced beyond all reasonable doubt
that legislation so drastic in terms.
| tending in such large measure to make
| criminal the otherwise innocent, every
I day affairs Of life. should not be upheld
! by this court; and fully satisfied beyond
| itself in express terms involves more OF
personal liberty and the rights of pri-
! Vate property. inturpitude and crime
I than has any prior act ever upheld by
/ this court: and also convinced that the
| process of reasoning employed in the
| act Is inherently and radically false IN
| principle and dangerous in conclusions.
I refuse to concur therein"
The case viii probably be appealed to
| the United States supreme court Soon
after the decision was handed down. E
| J. Smiley the defendant in the case.
/ appeared at the state house to look the
| decision over.
''Win you carry this case up to the
| United States supreme court2" he was
asked
4 do not know yet" he replied ..I
viii refer the matter to my attorney,
| but I presume it viii be carried up
This decision makes every grain deal
Grain Dealers association and who hsas
been in a pooling arrangement to cone
/ troll the price of grain, liable to fine
and imprisonment under the antitrust
law There are many grain dealers IN
the state who have been forced into the
/ association because they did not dare