The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-02
DULUTH
BOARD OF TRADE
Continued From First Page.

the early fall of 1905 the exchange mar
keted some grain thru Duluth commits
sion houses, but after a short time, under
the coercion of the board and it's direc-t
tors, these commission men refused to
handle any grain for the exchange. Upon
application to other members Of the
board the exchange met with nothing but
'refusals to handle Its grain and found
itself effectually shut out Of the Duluth
market. StAa
Certain Of the rules OF the board fix a
complete scale of commissions and heavy
fines and severe punishments are provided
for any infraction thereof. These rules
not only constrain members Of the board
to abide by them but obligate members
to boycott any non member who does not
abide by them to the letter. In fact, I'M
DER the circumstances existing at Duluth
1t is hard to imagine more perfect
complete and effectual mechanism for
controlling the grain market at that city
than that which has been devised and put
in operation by the Duluth board and it's
members. -
The complaint sets forth the facts as
| they are alleged to sbe by the Farmers
Exchange, relative to its exclusion from
the Duluth market It also sets forth
the bylaws which are claimed to be in
unlawful restraint Of trade. It is then
alleged that the board constitutes an ar
rangement, agreement and conspiracy in
! tended to and actually tending to limit,
| interfere with and destroy open and free
competition in the purchase and sale OF
grain and produce on the Duluth market.
For these reasons, the complaint asks
| that the board and it's officers be re-
strained from continuing their unlawful
restraint and interference with competi-
| ton on the Duluth market and that the
board or Trade, which is a corporation
be dissolved, it's corporate privileges an6
franchises be declared forfeited and its
business wound up and disposed Of az
provided by law. .a>|
This Is the second suit instituted under
the state antitrust law by Attorney Gen
eral Young and Assistant Attorney Gen
4 eral Stone, the first action being the Low
4 ry Elevator store case, commenced in No
vember last. s,+s i -.-<-.. a'-
1 Directors Are Defendants.
!, The defendants named are ''The Du
!uth Board of Trade a corporation
John Miller, George Spencer, j. H
Barnes, A. w. Finch, S., H. Jones, E
/ Il. Smith, J. F. Mccarthy, D. T.. Helm
IL; n" Mckindley,. w. -Dalrymple, J. Fl
| T. salyards. y The men named are Of
fcers and directors as@s ~. +. H..
The complaint sets forth the facts
including copy Of the bylaws allege
to be- illegal, and gives the testimon
OF the officers Of the Farmers Ez
change. They .allege that when the
hrsts applied for membership in tn
board, they were refused because thei
stockholders. They rescinded this rul
and applied again, but were refuse
because they were an organization Q
farmers endeavoring to market thei
own products. They, then began COZ
signing, grain to members to sell fe
them, but this was finally forbidden
and the exchange is now. deprived {
plant charges that the defendant
have "confederated and conspired2 t,
gether' to prevent anyone not men
) Der from carrying on, grain or pro,
! uce commission business in Duluth; |
! fix rates Of commission and interes
to discriminate between members an
z non mesahars in ratts and in facilHi,
! for business, land to boycott all. ne
with the unlawful bylaws. The Col
: plant asks for the following relief:
: What the State Asks. ~
4 'First-That the corporate priv
8 leges, powers and franchises of defen
s ant board be declared forfeited, al
that 1t be dissolved and its proper
;: disposed Of under direction Of tn
Q court, as by law provided. y,
"Second-That the defendants al
each Of them be permanently enioin,
land restrained from in any way co
f tinuing their present conspiracy a,
e arrangement, and from in any way
:, terfering. with, restraining or limiti1
u open and full competition in the p,
h chase and sale Of grain or produ
T. upon the Duluth market or elsewhere.
3 "Third-That the plaintiffs ha
J. such other and further relief as / t
J. court may deem Just and proper. -
. The state is relying on the famo
"a case Of c. j., Ertz against the Min1
II apolis Produce Exchange, in viii
- Ertz secured damages for injury to
% business, and the supreme, court {
= cided that the bylaws of the exchan
=. - were an illegal restraint Of trade. The
" bylaws were of the same tenor as tho
Ill loI on+o1 NV tho nn1,,tb hoor1