The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1922-06-15
State Supreme Court Declares South
st. Paul Livestock Exchange
is Open Market.
IT PROHIBITS BOYCOTTING
Decision Marks Sweeping Victory in
the Farm Bureau Fight for
Public Regulation.
fFarm Bureau News Seryice.l

court mas nanQeQ down decision up
holding the law by which Minnesota
declared the South St. Paul livestock
exchange to be an open market. The
decision affirms the right of the people
to exercise the police powers of their
state government in regulating the
livestock exchange. can association
of commission men, dealing in live
stock at public stockyards, may be re-
Quired to observe such reasonable reg
ulations as the state sees fit to impose
in the exercise of it's police power"
the supreme court ruled.
The decision of the high court was
handed down in the case of Grisim
against the South St. Paul livestock
exchange. George Grisim, member
of the exchange, traded with nom
member in violation of rules of the ex-
change. The exchange attempted to
fine him $3.50 for breaking it's regula-
tons. Mr.. Grisim brought action
against the exchange.
Under the "open market" act passed
by the state legislature last year as
part of the Minnesota Farm Bureau
federation's legislative program, the
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.
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 in
volving the farmers business inter-
ests and public welfare. It upholds
one of the outstanding laws enacted
by the last legislature in response to
an overwhelming demand from Mime
sofa 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 livestock exchange
cannot prevent it's members from trad
ing with men who are not members.
It means that a livestock exchange
cannot prevent members from dealing
with cooperative commission asso-
citation, established on the terminal
market by Minnesota farmers in an
effort to reduce the cost of distribution
and to stabilize prices in the interest
of both producer and consumer. It
means that an organized boycott
against a farmers cooperative sales
agency by livestock exchanges is I'M
lawful.
opinion referred to court decisions in
volving the Kansas City exchange,
quoting a statement that the traders
who were 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, discloses no
abuses of the defendants potential
power over the livestock business at
the South St. Paul market. The ex-
change may render useful services to
the public by it's control over it's mem
bers, the court stated, "but the power
it yields over them is capable Of
abuse"
Time and again, when the right of
the people to supervise the markets
where their food is bought and sold
has been at issue representatives of
exchanges have argued that proposed
regulations would violate the ex-
changes contracts with the state, as
contained in corporate charters. Now
the supreme court has stated all con-
tracts relating to matters within the
police power Of the state are subject
to the exercise Of that power, because
"the legislature cannot surrender it
or bind the state not to exert it." The
supreme court also overthrows the cx-
change argument that the open mar
ket act deprives exchange members
of property without due process of
law, by destroying the value of men,
bership. Membership rights, the high
court ruled, may be property, but
"they are property which is subject to
the police power of the state" Prop
erty rights are just as much subject to
the police power of the people, as
exercised through the state, as to
the taxing power of the state, the
supreme court held
The decision upholding the open
market law is an agricultural triumph.
The first definite result Of attacks on
the agricultural marketing laws en-
acted in Minnesota is victory for the
farmers and for the public. 1t is a
sweeping victory for the Minnesota
Farm Bureau federation, which orga-
nized and led the fight for open mar
kets and the right Of the people to
supervise the marketing of the food
they eat.