The Hartford herald. [volume] (Hartford, Ky.) 1875-1926, 1915-12-01
CRECEl|US ACT
DECLARED VOID
Latest Decree Of Appel
late Court.
FARMERS CANNOT POOL CROPS
E0r Higher Prices Common
Law Controls Contracts
ReStrainingTrade.
B,rHNG Is MADE IN GAY CASE

Frankfort, KY, Nov 26.--Con.
nited States Supreme Court in the
International Harvester cases, with
fhe alternative of declaring uncon.
iitntional the Crecelius Act of 1906
Yermitting farmers to pool their
'rc9s for the purpose of realizing a
higher price than they otherwise
ould get. or saying that anybody
Use. including corporations selling
arm essentials, can do the same, the
'ourt of Appeals declared the Gre
-elius Act void. 1t upheld. however,
he original antitrust law of 1890
prohibiting combinations in restraint
)f trade. 1t said that law does not
.ihrogate the common law doctrine
On the same subject, but is a com
panion law Either may be invoked.
IL said
The court attempts to make effec-
i've the Crecelius Act by constituting
u with the Act of 1890 and Section
i9S OF the Constitution, holding
hat farmers may form pools to Sc
cure a higher price than they could
selling in competition; and by max
ing civil and criminal liability under
The antitrust law to rest on the
question whether or not the price Sc
V.t ,ha
.or oppressed below the real value of
the article sold.
The Supreme Court. however.
lcld that the fact could not be
easonably determined whether the
,rice was higher or lower than
he real value. II said the law as
'orstrued violated the Fourteenth
amendment TO the Federal Constitu-
hon, guaranteeing equal protection
li the law. 1t reversed the Court of
appeals and left the antitrust situa-
ion in Kentucky in a state Of chaos.
nut of which it emerged to-day in
ne case of Davis S. Gay against N.
Ford Brent. appealed from Clark
county, in which the whole court sat
and Judge Carroll wrote the opinion.
tHrming the Clark Circuit Court
Incidentally the court said that
under these Supreme Court decis-
IONS the General Assembly cannot
.noct a valid law. following language /
of the Constitution. and resting /
Iminal liability on the question OF ,
So hether or not the price is higher
han the real value or depressed be-
low IT.
The question involved in the Gay
.'sse was whether the common law
rnle applies that an executOry con
tract in furtherance of a design in
restraint of trade cannot be enforc-
"a, and the lower court was sustain
. q in holding that it cannot be en-
rorced.
Gay, J. s Wilson and Il. f.
spears & Sons, dealers in bluegrass
seco, % per cent. of which is pro-
iuced in Kentucky. formed the Ken
ucly Blue Grass Seed Company in
$500 for the purpose of buying up
controlling portion of the visible
supply of seed. They bought a lot
II Brent at 30 cents the busheI. Be
Tore time for delivery the price went
~ IS cents. and Brent refused 10 /
iellver. They sued him for damages
for breach of contract and raised the ,
issue as to the status OF antitrust /,
regulations in Kentucky. {
Judge Carroll. quoting from the G
opinion of the Circuit Judge. said J
among other things:
Contracts in restraint of trade
are controlled by the common law.
and when they are unreasonable
hey are declared void. A contract {
entered into between those who have s
heretofore engaged in competition
with reference to any particular pro-
imct on commodity. which suppress d
Is and controls the market with ref
renee to that product or commodity
$ in unreasonable restraint of trade. }
md this suppression Is not required :
% be total in order to bring II with
N the condemnation OF the law,
When the enforcement of an execu-
DRY contract would be Il step In the Y
perfection of q scheme To restrain
rade in commodity. the law viii b
iot aid the perfection of such a Y
icheme by enforcing such contract =
brother Saves Brother In Baltic. a
The following instance of courage q