The Semi-weekly leader. (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1905-1941, 1909-01-27
COTTON OIL MILL TRUST.
Supreme Court Holds Il Violated the
Statutes.

SIdLuteS.
jackson Miss, Jan. 25. In al
opinion handed down this Afternoon
the supreme court sustained the
validity of the Mississippi anti
trust statutes.
The opinion Of the court wal
prepared by ex-Chief Justice j. A.
P. Campbell, sitting as special judge
in the place of Justice Fletcher,
who was disqualified by reason Of
his previous connection with the
litigation as attorney general.
Justice Fletcher, it will be re,
called, instituted the original pro-
ceedings in this case, and it is &
silent compliment to him that the
tribunal of which he is now mem
ber should sustain the position TAX
en- by him while acting as the
States chief law officer in institut
ing the proceedings declaring that
the corporations involved, known
as 1.-THE oil mill trust" had violat.
ed the code chapter on trusts anc
combines.
There are. two other antitrust
suits now pending, both Instituted
by Judge Fletcher as attorney gen.
eral, and the tenor of the decision
prepared by Judge Campbell means
that the States attitude in both Of
these cases will be sustained. One
of the suits yet pending is against
the Mississippi-Louisiana Retail
Lumber Dealers Association anC
the other against the American
Snuff Company, the latter being {
branch of the alleged tobacco trust
THE DECISION.
The full text of the decision is as
follows:
No. 1890.
State of Mississippi VS.. Jackson
Oil Company.
J. A. P. Campbell, special judge
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case has been argued by
several counsel with great wealth
of learning which has received due
attention by the court, and aided
by it, we do not consider it proper
to do more than to decide the
questions involved in the case
before us leaving all others to be
decided as they may arise hereafter
While corporations are entitled
to the protection of the constitution
of the State and the United States
they are in class by themselves
and their charters are held at the
will of the legislature, subject te
amendment or repeal, and they may
be dealt with differently from
natural persons.
Berea College VS.. Kentucky, 211
U. S. 45.
| The power of the legislature tc
prohibit trusts, combinations
contracts and agreements inimical
to the public welfare if not derived
from or dependent on Sec. 1913 o1
the State constitution, which
neither confers nor limits its pow
er, which exists by virtue of the
general grant of legislative power
This section imposes on the legisla-
ture the duty to pass such laws and
the use of the expression, mimi
cal to the public welfare, +" by the
legislature has no effect except tC
show that what it prohibits is by
it regarded as of that character
That expression might be stricken
from the constitution and laws
without affecting the validity Of
the law. 1t is for the legislature
to declare what is inimicaI to pub.
lie welfare, and it is only when il
transcends the limit of legislative
power that the courts may inter.
pose to shield the fundamental law
for violation.
This case is to be determined by
Chapter SO of Laws of Mississippi
1907 in force in 1902 when the
act complained of by the informa.
tion occurred.
We do not regard that statute az
unconstitutional, for it is certainly
true that an agreement the purpose
and effect of which are directly to
restrain trade and hinder competi-
ton in the sale or purchase of {
commodity is against public policy
and void and punishable.
Ii it is true that any provision Of
the act of 1900 is violative of the
constitution of the State or the
United States it may be disregard
| ed and eliminated, since the various
provisions are severable, and do moi
present the difficulty which ha;
sometimes caused statutes to be
condemned.
We find no fault with the in.
formation containing several un.
necessary averments but all charac,
terizing a single cause of action.
Its averments bring this case fully
within the case of Kosciusko Co.
VS.. Wilson Co., 80 Miss. 55l, decid
led by this court, which is decisive
of this.
The APPELLEE, ifit shall be convict
led. is not liable to the penalty de.
clared by section 5OO4 of the Codt
Of 1906, for the offense charged
occurred in 1908, when the act 8.
1900 was in force, the penalty fol
violation Of which was forfeiture
Iof character; and section 1924 8.
\ the Code provides that, for an,
former violation Of the law ths
penalty may be fine of 5000 with
Iout forfeiture of character. So, i.
Iappellee shall be convicted the tria
Icourt regarding the clear intima
i Il ! Il IL slI -