Two other States, Nebraska and South Carolina, have adopted substantially similar laws. The statute of the latter State, however, includes "giving away" as well as selling below cost of manufacture for the purpose of financially injuring competitors and is limited in its application to persons engaged in the manufacture or sale of any article of commerce or consumption from raw material produced or mined within the State. This provision is apparently further qualified by the following: Said person or corporation resorting to this method of securing a monopoly in the manufacture, refining and sale of the finished products produced or mined in this State, shall be deemed guilty of a conspiracy to form or secure a trust or monopoly in restraint of trade, etc. Alabama, while not adopting this form of legislation, penalizes any person or corporation which shall destroy, or attempt to destroy, competition in the manufacture or sale of a commodity.2 Mississippi, like Alabama, penalizes individuals, corporations, etc., who shall destroy, or attempt to destroy, competition in the manufacture or sale of a commodity, but adds the words "by selling or offering same at a price below the normal cost of production." 3 Tennessee prohibits any person, firm, or corporation engaged in manufacturing from giving away or selling for a less price than the cost of manufacture any manufactured article in the State, with the intent and purpose of destroying honest competition.1 Texas penalizes any member, agent, employee, officer, director, or stockholder of any business, firm, corporation or association of persons who shall with the intent or purpose of driving out competition or for the purpose of financially injuring competitors sell within the State at less than cost of manufacture or production or sell in such a way or give away within the State products for the purpose of driving out competition or financially injuring competitors, or give secret rebates on such purchase for the purpose aforesaid.5 Arkansas penalizes any person or corporation engaged in the manufacture or sale of any article of commerce or consumption produced, manufactured, or mined in the State, or elsewhere, who shall, with the intent and purpose of driving out competition, or for the purpose of financially injuring competitors, sell within the State, at less than cost of manufacture or production, or sell in such a way, or give away in the State, their productions for the purpose of driving out 1 Nebraska, Comp. Stats., sec. 6302f; South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, sec. 3. 3 Mississippi, Code 1906, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 119, sec. 1. 4 Tennessee, Laws 1907, chap. 36, as amended by Laws 1907, chap. 360. 5 Texas, Rev. Crim. Stats., 1911, art. 1471. competition, or financially injuring competitors. The provision is apparently qualified by the following: Said person, * * * resorting to this method of securing a monopoly within this State in such business, shall be deemed guilty of a conspiracy to form and secure a trust or monopoly in restraint of trade. Massachusetts prohibits any person, corporation, etc., from combining for the purpose of destroying the trade or business of any person, firm, association, or corporation engaged in selling goods or commodities and of creating a monopoly within the Commonwealth.2 North Carolina prohibits any person, corporation, etc., from directly or indirectly, willfully destroying or injuring, or undertaking to destroy or injure, the business of any opponent or business rival in the State "by circulating false reports" tending to damage the credit or character of said opponent or rival, or tending to interfere with the trade of said opponent, with the purpose of attempting to fix the price of anything of value when the competition is removed.3 North Carolina prohibits also any person, corporation, etc., from doing, or from having any contract, express or implied, to do, any of the following acts: 1. To wilfully destroy or injure, or undertake to destroy or injure, the business of any opponent or business rival in the State of North Carolina, with the purpose or intention of attempting to fix the price of anything of value when the competition is removed. 2. To buy or sell within the State anything of value which is sold or bought in the State to injure or destroy, or undertake to injure or destroy, the business of any rival, by lowering the price of anything sold, so low, or raising the price of anything bought, so high as to leave an unreasonable or inadequate profit for a time, with the purpose of increasing the profit on the business when such rival is driven out of business, or his, their, or its business is injured.* 5 Oklahoma prohibits a combination or any member thereof from raising or lowering the price of a commodity or lowering the price for services rendered, in the immediate territory of a financially weaker competitor, while, at the same time, it is dealing in a like commodity for a different and more advantageous price, or charging a greater rate for like services at another point within the State, and declares the same to be unfair and destructive competition. The doing of any act which directly or indirectly brings about a similar effect, on such weaker competitor is also prohibited. Allowance is to be made for grade or quality of product and freight rate. 1 Arkansas, act of 1905, as amended Mar. 12, 1913, sec. 6. 2 Massachusetts, Laws 1912, chap. 651, sec. 2. 3 North Carolina, Laws 1911, chap. 167, sec. 1b. 4 North Carolina, Laws 1913, chap. 41, sec. 5 c, d. 5 In substance, "combination" is defined as the association together of two or more corporations engaged in the same line of business by the control of certificates of stock or other interest in more than one such corporation by any one of them or by any stockholder thereof. The combination is permitted, however, to meet the price made by any one not connected with it, or influenced by it, at any particular point within the State.1 Wisconsin prohibits combinations, associations, agreements, etc., of two or more persons for the purpose of willfully or maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business, or profession by any means whatever." REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION.-The constitutions of Arizona and Washington prohibit corporations, copartnerships, or associations of persons in the State from combining or making any contract with any incorporated company, copartnership, etc., or in any manner whatever to regulate the transportation of any product or commodity.3 An Arizona statute prohibits combinations of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons, corporations, etc., to regulate the transportation of any product or commodity. Briefly, South Dakota prohibits combinations, understandings, agreements, etc., to regulate the transportation, directly or otherwise, of any product or commodity, so as to obstruct or prevent competition.5 New York prohibits foreign corporations engaged in the transportation business in that State, and any partnership or other association or person so engaged from creating, or becoming a party to any pool, trust, agreement or understanding to control the volume of transportation between this country and Europe, or to control, limit, regulate or fix the rates thereof, and further penalizes the refusal to sell transportation between the United States and Europe either eastbound or westbound at the usual and legal rates. Section 11. Specific provisions affecting agricultural interests. Aside from the antidiscrimination laws of Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, which apply 1 Oklahoma, Laws 1913, chap. 114, secs. 4, 5. 2 Wisconsin, Stats. 1898, sec. 4466a. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S., 194 (1904).—Upon information brought under the Wisconsin statut s of 1898, section 4466a, it was charged that one Aikens and two others, who were managers of three Milwaukee newspapers, conspired together with the intent of willfully and maliciously injuring the Journal Co., the publisher of another Milwaukee paper. It was alleged that this company had given notification of an increase of about 25 per cent in its charges for advertising and that thereupon the managers of these three other papers agreed that if any person should agree to pay the increased rate to the Journal Co. then he should not be permitted to advertise in their papers except at a corresponding increase in rate, but if he should refuse to pay the Journal Co. the increased rate, then he should be allowed to advertise in their papers at the rate previously charged. On writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States as to the constitutionality of the Wisconsin statute, the judgment of the lower court, finding the three managers guilty as charged, was affirmed, the court holding that this statute is not in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution so far as it prohibited combinations Intended to do wrongful harm and that the amendment was not intended to protect the liberty to combine to inflict malicious mischief even upon such intangibles as business or reputation. * Arizona, Constitution, Art. XIV, sec. 15; Washington, Constitution, Art. XII, sec. 22. 4 Arizona, Laws 1912, chap. 73, sec. 1. 5 South Dakota, Laws 1909, chap. 224, secs. 2, 3, 4, 5. New York Cons. Laws, Gen. Bus. Law, sec. 350. to milk, cream, and butter fat, and certain laws of Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and Tennessee, noted herein under "Pooling" (p. 167) and "Restraint of competition" (p. 159), the following provisions affecting agricultural interests have been adopted: The constitution of Louisiana (art. 190, adopted Nov. 22, 1913) declares that it shall be unlawful for persons or corporations, or their legal representatives, to combine or conspire together, or to unite or pool their interests, for the purpose of forcing up or down the price of any agricultural product or article of necessity, for speculative purposes. In Illinois an act to define trusts and conspiracies against trade, etc., one section of which provided that the act should not apply to "agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser," was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the act, by virtue of this clause, was in contravention of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States as denying the equal protection of the laws.1 There is a similar provision in the laws of Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas.2 The statutes of California and Colorado contain a practically identical provision which apparently would exempt agricultural associations from the operation of the antitrust laws: No agreement, combination or association shall be deemed to be unlawful or within the provisions of this act, the object and business of which are to conduct its operations at a reasonable profit or to market at a reasonable profit those products which can not otherwise be so marketed, Provided further, That it shall not be deemed to be unlawful, or within the provisions of this act, for persons, firms or corporations, engaged in the business of selling or manufacturing commodities of a similar or like character, to employ, form, organize or own any interest in any association, firm or corporation, having as its object or purpose the transportation, marketing or delivery of such commodities.3 California prohibits the destruction of "animal, vegetable, or other stuffs, products, or articles, in restraint of trade which are customary food for human beings and are in fit sanitary condition to be used as such." In Ohio when the violation of the provisions of the antitrust law consists of a combination to control the price or supply or to prevent competition in the sale of bread, butter, eggs, flour, meat, or vegetables or any one of said articles, the person or persons thus engaged are subject to greater punishment than in other cases." 1 Illinois, act of June 20, 1893, sec. 9; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S., 540 (1902). (See p. 97.) 2 Indiana, Burns R. S., 1914, sec. 3881; Louisiana, Laws 1892, act 90, sec. 8; Michigan, Howell's Stats., 1913, sec. 14892; Texas, Rev. Crim. Stats. 1911, Art. 1477. California, Laws 1907, chap. 530, sec. 1, amended by Laws 1909, chap. 362; Colorado, Laws 1913, chap. 161, sec. 1. 4 California, Laws 1913, chap. 233, sec. 1. 5 Ohio, G. C., sec. 6396, as amended May 3, 1913. The law of Florida prohibits arrangements, trusts, combinations, etc., between persons and corporations, made with a view to, or tending to prevent, hinder, or obstruct the lawful sale in the State of beef or other fresh meat of cattle or any other edible animal raised, fattened, or fed in the State, or any other beef or fresh meat, or with a view to or tending to prevent, hinder, or obstruct the lawful sale of any cattle, etc., in the State, or which shall tend to monopolize or control the sale or price of fresh meat in the State.' Washington prohibits commission merchants from entering into any combination, conspiracy, or pool for the purpose of artificially raising or depressing the market price of any farm, dairy, orchard, or garden produce, or of excluding from the market the produce of any particular locality grown or manufactured by any person within the State.2 Colorado has substantially a similar provision, but includes a "gentlemen's agreement," and further prohibits the making of "any unfair, unreasonable, or unjust discrimination in any of these respects." 3 Section 12. Specific provisions affecting labor. In Wisconsin it is provided that nothing in the antitrust act of 1893 shall be construed to affect labor unions or any other association of laborers organized for the purpose of promoting the welfare of its members. In Louisiana the provisions of the antitrust act of 1892 do not affect any combination or confederation of laborers for the purpose of procuring an increase of their wages or redress of grievances." In Montana the provisions of the antitrust law of 1909 do not apply to any arrangements, agreement, or combination between laborers made with the object of lessening the number of hours of labor or increasing wages. The law of Michigan declares that the provisions of the antitrust act shall not apply to services of laborers or artisans who are formed into societies or organizations for the benefit and protection of their members. In California and Colorado, labor, whether skilled or unskilled, is not a commodity within the meaning of the antitrust law.8 A law of Oklahoma declares that no agreement, combination, or contract by or between two or more persons to do or procure to be 1 Florida, Comp. Laws 1910, sec. 3160. * Washington, Remington & Ballinger's Code (1910), sec. 7032. Colorado, Laws 1913, chap. 58, sec. 12. 4 Wisconsin Stats. (1913), sec. 1747h. 5 Louisiana, Laws 1892, Act 90, sec. 8. Montana, Laws 1909, chap. 97, sec. 2. 7 Michigan, Howell's Stats. (1913), sec. 14892. 8 California, Laws 1907, chap. 530, as amended by Laws 1909, chap. 362; Colorado, Laws 1913, chap. 161, sec. 1. |