The Forrest City times., 1905-08-25
THE ANTITRUST LAW
. Invades Our Very Dooryard and
 Ensnares Eleven Victims.

l} aS loi'OWS. State vs. St. Francis River Plan. tation Company. State vs. Longley Co.
 State vs. Olin Plantation Com pany.
 State vs. Widener Gin Co.
 State vs. Forrest City Spoke Company.
 State vs. St. Francis Electric Light Company.
 State vs. Bank of Forrest City. State vs. Forrest City Ice X Power Company.
 State vs. Ghoctaw Brick X Tile Company.
 Stale vs. Planters Gin X Manu- featuring Company.
 State vs. The J. W. Beck Com pany.
 The cause of action and the complaint alleges q violation of Ihe antitrust law, and is as fol- lows in each case, except the name of defendants.
 In the St. Francis Circuit Court.
 Fall Term of 1905. The State of Arkansas on relation of | P.R R. Andrews, Prosecuting Attor- ney, First Judicial Circuit. Plain tilT-
 st Francis River Plantation Company Defendant.
 COMPLAINT
 The plaintiff, the State of Arkansas. on relation of F. E. Andrews pros ecating attorney for First Judicial Circuit, for cause Of action against the defendant herein, alleges;
 That the said defendant, St. Fran eis River Plantation Company is cor peration organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkan- sas and having it's principal place of business in St. Francis county of said State. That under and by virtue of Section Seven t71 of an Act of the Legislature of the State of Arkansas. approved January 23rd.. 1905, entitled An Act providing for the punish- ment Of pools, trusts and conspiracies to control prices and as evidence and prosecution in such cases it is pro- Flded that all incorporated companies doing business ill this State shall make and file with the Secretary of State through either it's President. Secre- tary, Treasurer, or some of it's Board of Directors an affidavit in answer to letter of inquiry to be mailed such incorporated company. on CT about the first day of July of each year, touching the question as to whether such incorporated companies have all or any part of their interest or business in or with any trust. com bination or association of persons or stockholders as is mentioned in said Act.
 Plaintitf alleges that the Secretary of State of the State of Arkansas, to- Wit, Q. (. Ludwig. more than thirty days prior to the l2th day of August. l9o3, mailed letter of inquiry to said defendant and enclosed in said letter form of affidavit as is provided in said Act. The said affidavit to be Tiled out and sworn to. and said let ter answered by either the President, Secretary, Treasurer or some director of the corporation, but plaintiff al- leges that the said defendant, failed and refused within thirty days from the day said letter of inquiry enclos- ing said blank affidavit was mailed defendant, to answer said letter of in- quiry and to ill out and swear to said affidavit and to cause said affidavit to be tiled with the Secretary of State Tn compliance with the terms of and | as is required by said Act.
 Wherefore, the plaintiff the State of Arkansas, prays that it have judg- | ment against the defendant, St Fran lsRiyer Plantation Company for the l sum Of five thousand dollars because | ai its failure and refusal to comply | With said law, and that the charter or certificate of incorporation of the said defendant company be forfeited, and that it also have judgment for all it's costs in this suit expended and for Ill its proper relief.
 F. R. ANDREWS,
 Attorney for Plaintiff. The law says the penalty for violation of this law shall be not less than S2O0 nor more than soo00, and each day shall const- ute a separate offense.