The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-04-17

-,.s Aprf 16.-The court of
W. :, ,odat refused rehearing In
s,. compress company antitrust
NR vas asked for by the State.
| 0od, that the acts Of 1898 and
unconstitutional and the act Of
,Onched. The attorney general
,.k. the case to the supreme
~ opinion rendered today is as
,rrlnal opinion, in disS2sing of
~ held that the Law OF 1879,
!, and defining trusts, illegal com
W, and monopolles was unconstltu'
ifpon reconsideration we nave cph-
~! iris statute was not Involved
n rese before US, ana all express lions
"slylnaI oulniOu concerning the III
III unronstiutlonality OF the
Lie. NJ 1873 are Withdrawn, and no
eynressed by quorum o. the
.aou tic effect Of that statute, q
sIfyirs ruling made concerning its
estioeslity OF uncunstitutionality.
y. understand the ease made by the
iisrs n6tltlon, and as II was treated
h VA cVIi ~ ho "a" II il in tbe main
Iea.su .bo isu nF tsu5 that nro.
{aa'ta upVn en,,l,inotinns tn rrn-itn az
D lfdsH VI o.,ons In Trade ou commerce
p 'll lts.i t,,o,.on or tn nrnvent romnn.
ii' 70 S.ui Nv ,,,,,,or.c I'm nnrn -
ii ID hlus " M giatc,,cut Is ina1o I'm
" rtcp'u saat and cnnnIusIons of INV
iaages ~ ~ a.. H. cnr,.nicI Inv, both
D uial Voun',,ho. ,,o antt,tiust .ot Of
Pc laat h' a,hor,,ilo yn,.y cn,nnreben.
~ nq ' 1Soo ornr to tbc cose hncausa
ic u ~ s, "pr,' ,ids 70 cnn,n,aron
ld has ltie1s,,,. oto and that a.
n UliVs 90 'o I'D! ~ tbn nri,' onti.tr,,st
/ q AP iI V 80 -, tba CASE In tbe
Ils aPpn, an,o,t,v, and the oral o,.gm'
~ q w apl,e.", nv u"
~ y llt svui ~ ,aI oynont os w tb"3
tH y sV ~ rai.o,, enc nnntont,on tbat
|iia :. y lh"' t"'' a,nnIioou rroatad "'
WIuu,r Nah ~, ,oiirnI ana rosscd imam
'a W ,i, G"I nninion '''' -
N (. Vs'D n,snpe, In which tho iss,o Of
,,oal, l. raised pnder The plendinps and
.,,5 br The nortirs in cnuld II, any
N, no urged thHt rho antitrust statute
10 smbr,ced hi, foofure Of tha rusr
an, onlnion n conclusive answer tn me
,odstlop is that the facts stated i'm the
IA Al NOT make A caA, Of monopoly
Its,t fern is defined I'm the act Of 1899
4 Nm views and observations expressed
at original opinion upon this subject
asrnag monopolies are applicable TO this
isrh Of lie case But before leaving
! subject, the writer Is clearly Of the
l.c1 that the antitrust statutes OF 1889
@ unconstitutional, and are not of the
y Of statutes condemned by the recent
iioH Of the supreme court Of the United
its cited In the original opinion, As
iIe Justice Key, the only other member
We court reserves his opinion upon this
.et We are both agreed. for the reH-
! Mled IN the original opinion, that
aaIlrust statutes OF 1883 and 1879 are
ssIlsulatlOnal'
4 ~ A.,tt conclusion IS not In accord
= we ,'sws expressed pN inns court III
~ VI naters-l!tnce on company vs..
~ snN ~ itAas' IL Nv: APP, J, where
sut 'It the acts OF the legislature or
,4. 1ua io'y were III accord win that
y, ,n~ o tne constitution or the United
w s!Vn ne supreme court or the
- us, ~ Tue Feoelt case clted IN
4. tadi oplhloh' held TO be appllcable
M. ig'.,'' t atntes OF Illinois, which
~ III ~ W III VOCATION or the conStitu-
n, py'u ntnioers "l inc court sim en-
az ' ~ , opinion upon TINS subject eN,
NV. 'ue case OF NalerS-Ilerce Oh
,3i. "talr OF leNas. supra bnt
" M I'M u sne orlglnal opinion In Difference
!, N S,,,s OF me supreme court Of the
% their decision and follow 1t. he
,r LIst court has hnal jurisdiction ovcf
,..!ecl. ana the views and ruling they
M, co,,l Is authoritative and binding
,os.I,, gouIl, lhat court held that IL
|, NV .or iarmers aud stock raiserS
s,,ss ~ VI itllh"iN' VINO are exempted
.tstr, rom inc operation Of the anti
rombIns H. ~, .iat Hlate' TO form trusts
psts ous ,, concerning agricultural
IN ~ st NV i've STOCK. Therefore, the OK
NJ NJ VI s,a taese classes from the operation
ltc,a1n resulted In an arbitrary
h tbs 20, Of the other subjects upon
! Wv Natute would operate. 1t re-
Itlon r., su'neRt 10 show that the same
i s, Wt.h reference to these exempted
h, Of taru ~ IeHaS and that comb