Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-10-03

the number of questions that have
been asked the Tribune by farmers
and elevator men from all over the
country in relation to it, the Tribune
this morning publishes in full the
opinion of Attorney General Miller in
reference to the constituti0nality OF
the law passed by the last legisla.
ture regulating the prices to be PAID
for grain by old line and Independent
elevators. G'. .
Hon. w. H. Stutsman, president
board of railroad commissioners, Bis
marck, N. D. 4
Dear Sir: 1 have your favor IN
der date of Sept. 20, submitting the
following questions:
a.. Is chapter 287, laws OF 1913,
relating to unfair competition con
stitutional?
"2. If so, what constitutes a viola.
ton thereof?
"3. Does the paying by a line ele.
vator company of a higher price for
grain at one station than it does at
another, after making due allowance
for the difference, If any, in the cost
of transportation, constitute evidence
of O violation of this act?
"A. May a farmers elevator COM
pany lawfully pay / cent more to
stockholders for grain than is paid
by it to non-st0ckhOlders?
IS. May a cooperative elevator
company rebate to its stockholders
in the shape of profits those sums
which it refuses to pay non%-stockhold-
ers in the way of higher prices?
&c. Are the daily prices or lists
furnished by The Grain Bulletin OF
Minneapolis, an institution affiliated
with the chamber of commerce OF
that city, to its subscribers in North
Dakota, who comprise all of the ele-
vators of the state, and charged from
time to time at the bidding of the
subscribers themselves acting individ-
ually or in concert, binding on the
subscribers?
MiIer's General Reply.
Chapter 2S7, laws of 1913, is an
amendment of sections I. 2 and 4 OF
chapter 258, laws of 1907, entitled:
Gan act to prohibit discrimination be-
tween different sections, communities
or localities, unfair competition. ana
providing penalties for the Violation
thereof"
Section 1 of said act is as follows:
"Any person, firm or corporation,
foreign or domestic, doing business
in the state of North Dakota and en-
gagged in the production, tmanutac'
ture, distribution, purchase or selling
of milk, cream, butterfat. grain OF
any commodity in general use that
shall, with the intention of creating
a monopoly, or of destroying the Dus-
mess of a competitor, or of any regu-
lar established dealer, or to prevent
competition of any person who in
good faith intends and attempts to
become such a dealer, discriminate
between different sections, commun'
tiles, towns or cities, or portions
thereof, in this state, by purchasing
at a higher or selling at a lower rate
or price in one section, community,
town or city or portion thereof, In
this state, than is paid or charged
by such person, firm or corporation
for such milk, cream, butterfat, grain
or commodity in general use in an
other section, community, town or
city, or portion thereof, in this state,
after making due allowance for the
difference, if any, in the actual cost
Of transportation Of such commodi-
ties, shall be guilty Of unfair discrim-
nation"
Section 2 provides, if complaint be
made to the attorney general, he shall
investigate the matter complained of,
and for that purpose may subpoena
witnesses, administer Oaths, take tes-
timony and require the production OF
books or other documents belonging
to such persons, firms or corpora
lions, and If in his opinion sufficient
grounds exist therefor, he shall pros
Iecute an action to annul the charter
or revoke the permit or license of
such person, firm or corporation.
Section 4 provides the penalty for
a violation thereof in a sum not less
than 5000 nor nor than $4,000.
Specific Replies to Questions.
II. The purpose of the act is
plainly set forth in section 1, and pro-
any person, firm or corporation
doing business at two or more points
in this state from purchasing or sell
ing in this state any commodity in
general use at a higher price, or
selling at a lower price in n section
or community than is paid or charg-
ed by such person, firm or corpora
ton for a like commodity, allowing
for the difference, if any, in cost of
transportation, with the intent to
either create a monopoly. or destroy
the business Of a competitor or pre-
vent competition. After careful ex-
animation, I have cone to the conclu-
sion that chapter 2S7. laws of 1913,
is constitutional.
e. To violate the provisions Of
this act, some person, firm or corpor-
alton doing business in two or more
sections or communities in this state.
dealing in a commodity in general
use must:
: "(a) Pay a higher price OF. charge
a lower price for like commodities
in one section or community than is
paid by such person, firm or corpora
ton in another section or commune
ty, allowing the difference, if any, in
cost of transportation.
"(b) And the paying Of such high
er, or selling at such lower price
must be with the intent to create a
monopoly or destroy the business OF
a competitor or to prevent competi-
ton. In other words, the gist Of the
.0ffense is the intent with which the