The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1910-03-24
ANTITRUST Law TO
the SUPREME COURT
Question Of Grave Importance
Involved in Case Brought in
South Dakota.

Sioux Falls, 8. D.. March 22.-Th
United States supreme court is to b
called upon to pass upon the anti-trus
law enacted by the reform legislature
Of South Dakota. in a case instituted
by Attorney General 8. W. Clark
against the Central Lumber company.
which has its headquarters in Min
neapolis. Mimi, and has branch yards
at a number OF points in South Dakota.
The company has Just taken an appeal
to the highest court In the land from
q decision Of the state supreme court.
contends hat the antitrust law Of
South Dakota is unconstitutional.
1t is charged by the state authorities
that the lumber company attempted to
follow Standard OIL company methods
by cutting the price Of lumber when
ever a competing lumber yard was es.
tablished in a town in which it had
opened a branch. It Is alleged that
prices we're reduced to such a figure
that Independent companies could not
afford to do business. It vas further
charged that when 1t became necessary
for the company to reduce prices at
one point to crush out competition.
prices were boosted at other yards be-
longing to the company, and that in
this way the company could drive out
Of business competing yards without
financial loss to itself.
On the showing Of the state alleg-
ing the facts stated the company, at a
trial held in Mcpherson county, was
found liable in both civil and criminal
actions, M both cases were covered
[in the decision Of the state supreme
court, from which the company now
has taken an appeal to the highest
company is subject to a fine of any,
where from 5000 up to $4,000. and
should the decision Of the United
States supreme court hold the anti
trust law Of South Dakota to be con-
stitutional. the company will be barred
from doing business in South Dakota.
One Of the arguments for the COM
pany when the case was heard before
theastate supreme court was that while
th64anti-trust law of the state defines
what shall be declared as unfair dis
f~crfnanation, and fixes the penalty for
easA discrimination, 1t does not at any
spliese specifically prohibit such acts
In Mouth Dakota. The state supreme
GoVSS8. held this contention to be too
# TyStof be considered. Interfering to
l1es1he l1s0asfOn@ef the state supreme.
court states that under such q con-
structton OF the anti-trueto or anti-dis-
elimination law 1t would be necessary
to open the doors of the state peniten-
tiary and jails of South Dakota, as, the
criminal laws do not specifically pro-
hibit' murder, theft or other crimes in
this state. simply defining what shall
constitute such crimes. and fixing a
penalty for violation.
The case is the first to be decided
by the state supreme court under the
unfair discrimination or antitrust act
Of the legislature. It is. in fact, a test
case under the law, and If the United
States supreme court declares the law
valid there arc likely 70 no ofhor
prosecutions by the state legal depart
ment under the law, where such dis
ordinations as are alleged in the COM
plant against the Central Lumber
company are being carried on within
the state by some of the large cor
poratiOns, which are able financially to
carry on organized campaigns to crush
out Independent dealers who are striy-
ing to compete in South Dakota with
the big corporations.