Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1922-06-16


lll q n, IL Il 81
her ia vioia ion sc les the ex-
change. The exchange attempted to
Ednes him $3.50 for break sing rs reg;ula-
lions. Ills ~ ourt action
S Under the open market m act passed
by the state legislature last year as
part Of the Minnesota Farm Bureau
district court issued an order restrain
ing the exchange from collecting the
fine. On an appeal to the supreme
court, the decision of the lower court
was sustained. a5S ( 555 Il =.83si 53 Isl
The ruling Of the supreme court on
the open market law is one Of the
most important decisions ever handed
down in Minnesota in a case directly
involving the farmers business inter-
ests and public welfare. Il. 1t upholds
one of the outstanding laws enacted by
the last legislature in response to an
overwhelming demand from Minnesota
farmers, through their county farm
bureaus, for recognition Of the peoples
right to supervise the markets where
their food is bought and sold. :'~~
It means that a livestock exchange
cannot prevent its members from trad
ing with men who are not members.
1t means that a livestock exchange
cannot prevent members from dealing
with cooperative commission asso.
market by Minnesota farmers in an ef-
fort to reduce the cost of distribution
and to stabilize prices in the Interest
Of both producer and consumer. 1t
means that an organized boycott
against a farmers cooperative sales
agency by livestock exchange is I'M
lawful.
The Minnesota supreme court, in it's
opinion referred to court decisions in
Quoting a statement that "the traders
who We're members of the exchange
had never been able to resist the temp
tation to grasp the reins of the mar >,
ket and sit in the seat, Of monopoly"
The record in the South St: Paul case,
the opinion goes on, dlscloses no
abuses Of the DEFENDANTS potential
the South ST. Paul market. The ex-
change may render useful services to
the public by it's control over its menu
bers, the court stated, but the power
it Yields over them is capable OF
Time and again, when the right of
the people to supervise the MARKERS
where their food is bought and sold
has been at issue, representatives Of
exchanges have argued that proposed
regulations would violate the eNchang-
es' contracts with the state. as con
tanned in corporate charters: Now the
supreme court has stated all contracts
reiat ting to matters within the police
power of the state are subject to the
exercise of that power, because Inc
legislature cannot SURRENDER II OF p1hu
the state not to exert it. "
The supreme ccurc also oVerthfoWs
the exchange argument that the open
market act deprlve:5 eSchanSe members
of property without due y ooess or law
by destroying the value of membership:
Membership rights, the hlgh court
ruled. may be property, but they are
property which is subject to the police
power of the state: Property p tEa r naiics
are just as much subject to tne p0lleG
through the state, as to the taxing l;
power of the state, the supreme court
The decision upholding the, open
market law is an agricultural trl-
umph. The first definite result or A.
ftacks on the agricultural narket.nS
laws enacted in minnesota is victory
for the farmers and tor the pub.i:. II
is a Sweeping victory. f.r the Mime
sofa Farm Bureau federation, Wn1c1
ORGANIZED ona !ead the fg 9 b 5ep Ep9 1o
SUPERVISE the marketing Oh the food
| they eat.