Los Angeles herald., 1908-10-18
LAW IS
UPHELD BY WILBUR
DECIDES CARTWRIGHT ACT
CONSTITUTIONAL
Superior Court Judge Orders Lower
Court to Proceed with Cases
Against Four Ice Conn
panies In City

The constitutionality Of the Cart
wright antitrust law was upneld yes
terday Ia a decision handed down BY
Judge Wilbur In the case against the
National Ice and Cold Storage COM
pany, the Union Ice company, the Los
Angeles Ice and Cold Storage company
and the Merchants Ice and Cold Stor-
age company and the managers OF
each, j. o. Cashin, Stephen A. Bull
finch, ]. G. Mckinney and Frederick
G. Collins.
The complaint against the four COM
panies and their officials was sworn
to August 20, 1907. by Louis Dunl' a
detective In the employ of the district
attorney, charging them with carrying
on business against the interests or
trade A plea of not guilty was en-
tered and September 10 the defendants
filed a demurrer in Police Justice
Roses court, denying the Jurisdiction
of that court to try the case, the UNI
constitutionality of the Cartwright law
and making other contentious asalms.
the proceeding. This demurrer was
sustained and the case was appealed
to the superior court by Deputy Dis
trict Attorney Frank Blair, in charge
of the prosecution.
Judge Wilbur, in his opinion, says
legislation similar to the Cartwright
act has been adopted In the states OF
Texas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois ana
Kentucky and these laws are Identical
in language with the law Of California,
while the Ohio law is Identical in title
as well as in language. In both states
these laws have been held constiGu-
tional by the court of last resort In
those states, the Texas and Ohio cases
being decided by the unanimous court
and in the Kansas cases six OF the
judges, including the chief justice. con-
ind diaGanflnR-
"The Texas law" says the opinion,
''being the oldest of these statutes, has
been most frequently before the ap-
peIlate courts We also have the Sher-
man act, which was sustained by the
circuit court of appeals, appealed to
the federal supreme court ana anirmed
there in 1889. In each case as stated
the courts held the law constitutional"
Judge Wilbur takes up the conten-
lions of the defendants in the order In
which they appeared in the demurrer
and gives his opinion en- each.
Does the Cartwright law fail to con-
stitute the alleged act of crime because
it neglects to specify the place or I'M
prisonment:" is the first question TO
be considered.
cit may be-" says the court, that
the statute in failing TO designate the
place of Imprisonment is to that ex-
tene unconstitutional, but the statute
also provides q fine and this Is suffi-
cient to constitute a criminal offense."
In regard to the question whether
the law embraces more than one SUD
iect the court says: Seventeen differ
emf subjects are claimed by the plain
tiffs to be embraced in the act, thereby
violating the constitution of California,
which provides that Svery act shall
embrace but one subject. But 1t seems
that the legislation is along one def
mite line, TO restrain the trusts and
combinations defined in the act"
Law Is Constitutional
The contention that the law is un-
constitutional because of defective title
is thus answered by the court: Il
think the title taken as whole, shows
the general purpose to restrain illegal
trusts and combinations as defined in
the act and that the law Is not uncon-
stitutionaI as violating article 4. sec
ton "a, of the constitution of Califor-
MA
at Is claimed the law imposes excess
sive fines and inflicts cruel and unusual
punishment for the reason that each
day is made separate offense. and
the maximum punishment for each Of
tense is $4,000 and one years imprison-
ment If the provision in regard to inn
prisonment is unconstitutional. that
feature is eliminated. Without dis
cussing this contention In detail, it
should be observed that under our law,
In regard to burglary, a boy years
old can be imprisoned in the peniten-
tiary 108 years for stealing q dozen
eggs. provided he steals the eggs one
at a time from barn. each act con-
shutting a separate burglary. the max
imum punishment for burglary being
fifteen years for each offense. Under