Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1914-07-07
The Kentucky Statute

Illt ntntuCkN Otdtutt
THE conviction was under the
provision OF Section 39ll-A. of the
Kentucky statutes. being the act f
March 81 1866. az amended by the
sct of March 13. 1908 TIE act OF
1906 permitted persons to pool or
combine the crops Of tobacco. whea' (.
corn. oats. hay or o'her farm pro-
ducts raised by them. for the pur-
pose Of obtaining a better or higher
price thereof than could or might be
obtained by selling said crops separ-
ately or individually. The persons
so agreeing were also flowed to Sc
lect agents to receive aud 10 sell or
dispose of the crops so placed in or
der to accomplish the object of the
combination. The amendment of
1908. in addition to giving remedies
by way Of injunction and damages.
provided that the agent when so
selected should have the sole right
TO Il said crop so pooled or com.
bined.' that it should be unlawful
for any owner Of such crop 10 sell
or dispose Of same and for any per-
son to knowingly purchase the SINE
without written consent of such
agent. and that upon conviction
thereof a fine should be imposed
This statute, as construed by the
court Of appeals of Kentucky. is not
to be regarded as an Independent er :
actme mt. but is to be viewed in co. :
nection with the Kentucky antitrust
acts of 1890 aad in the light of Sec
ton 1873. of the Kentucky constitu-
ton adopted in 1891. The statute
of 1890 forbade the formation of
pools or combinations for the pur-
pose Of regulating. controlling or fix
ing the price of merchandise or prop
erty of any kind. Section 1893 of the
constitution. provided that it should
be the duty of the general assembly
from time tn time to enact such laws
as might be necessary to prevent all
trusts, pools. combinations or other
brought under other conditions as
certainable.
THE Harvester company was
prosecuted for being a party to a
priceraising combination; Collins
for breaking a combination agree
meut and selling outside the pool.
which he had Joined. With respect
to each. the test of the legality of
the combination was said to be
whether it raised prices above the
real value If it did-in the Collins
case-he would be subject to penal
ties for remaining in a combination;
il he did not. he would be punish
able for not keeping his tobacco in
the pool. He was thus bound to as
certain the re al value, to determine
his conduct, not according to the &C
Qualities of life, or by reference to
movable cIiteria, but by speculat
ing upon imaginary conditions and
endeavoring to conjecture what
would be the value under other and
so-called normal circumstances with
fair competition. eliminating the abb
normal influence Of the combination
itself and of all other like combina-
tons. and of still other combinations
which these were organized to op-
pose. The objection that the statute
by reason of its uncertainty. was
fundamentally defective. was as
available to Collins as it was to the
Harvester company.
''In this view. it was unnecessary
10 consider the objection under the
commerce clause or the alleged con-
1uct as to the interstate transactions
with the federal antitrust act.
The judgment IL reversed and the
cause remanded for further proceed
ngs not inconsistent with this opin-
on"
The court declared he Malone
.ase the same as that of Collins,
with the exception that the tobacco
n question was sold within the state
# Kentucky. For the re isons
tated in the Collins case the jUdg-
nent must be reversed" said JUS
ice Hughes.