ized to employ a common agent for the purpose of suppressing competition or lowering prices.1

Texas also prohibits corporations from acquiring the shares, bonds, franchises, or other rights or properties of other corporations for the purpose of preventing or lessening, or where the effect of such acquisition tends to affect or lessen, competition.'

Wisconsin prohibits corporations from entering into any combination, agreement, etc., intended to restrain or prevent competition in the supply or price of any article or commodity in general use in the State or constituting a subject of trade or commerce therein.3

Mississippi requires the charter or articles of association or the law under which a clearing house association is organized to prohibit it and its officers and managers from attempting to make or enforce any rule, regulation, agreement, or understanding in respect to "the restriction or regulation of competition between the members of the association or any of them in any matter or thing connected with the business conducted by such members or authorized to be done by them under their respective charters."

Porto Rico prohibits "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade, commerce, business transactions, and lawful and free competition in a town, or among the several towns of Porto Rico." 5

Section 5. Pooling.

DEFINITIONS.-Pools are prohibited in many States, and are defined by the laws of one, namely, North Dakota, where the term is a synonym of "trust."

CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS.-The constitution of Kentucky (sec. 198) requires the legislature to enact laws to prevent pools and other organizations "from combining to depreciate below its real value any article, or to enhance the cost of any article above its real value."*

1 North Carolina. Laws 1911 chap, 41, s. 5.

* Texas, Laws 146. Cap. XIV, se 2

Wiconish Laws: 197 p. 412, se. 1791

↑ Mississa på Laws 1914 chap. 124 sec. 63.

• Revised Statutes and Codes of Porto Rico 1911. sec. 2373.

•Nor. ` Pak, ta, Laws 19,” ebap. 24, sc. 2.

* In 1886) Ken; 2 ky passed an antitrust statute act of May 31, 180, Carrell's Kentucky Stats., secs. 3915 to 3821 proditioning agreements or combinations for the purpose of contrusing the price or outrait of any arta de ɔ'VETLITRES É A new State constitution adopted in 181 provided that the general assembly should act such laws ge næssary to prevent com) nations fer they mose of depressing below or enhancing coste arvat de avve is red value cost Invesca'th . Grustead is Kenây Sư Thong was held that the asti tama pres woon did not reread the act of is as they were not inwwtert or the contrary the overt was of the animam chat in the re of any other law, the less"ure ev - test i ens fered the a t of 18k the law be tushin, ared to en re the provision of the constsatn%sa* *es he དྷསསྨྲ :|: རྒྱས che de nood crops of wheat, tobacco, outs, hav, or other farm prof; forassed by them for the purpose vetrain ng a higher price than they by siting them separately, laws 19 cà 1p Q In 1908 a statute reaffirmed the A combinations, prevaded that the breach of such vomhatire agreements might be re

The constitution of Louisiana (art. 190, adopted Nov. 22, 1913) provides that it shall be unlawful for persons or corporations, or their legal representatives, "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."

STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS.-Alabama prohibits any person or corporation from entering into any pool to regulate or fix the price of any article or commodity to be sold or produced within the State, or to fix or limit the quantity of any article or commodity to be produced, manufactured, mined, or sold in the State.1

Nine other States (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah) have substantially similar laws.2

strained by injunction, and made unlawful the sale by or purchase from an owner contrary to his agreement (Laws, 1908, ch. 8, p. 38).

In cases arising after the passage of the act of 1906 the State courts held that the act of 1890, the constitution of 1891, and the act of 1906 must be taken together, and by interaction and to avoid questions of constitutionality, were construed to make any combination for the purpose of controlling prices lawful unless for the purpose or with the effect of fixing a price that was greater or less than the real value of the article [Owen County Burley Tobacco Society v. Brumback, 128 Kentucky, 137 (1908); Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co. of America, 131 Ky.,551 (1909); Commonwealth v. Hodges, 137, Ky., 233 (1910); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 137 Ky., 668 (1910); Collins v. Commonwealth, 141 Ky., 564 (1911); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 144 Ky., 403 (1911); American Seeding Machine Co. v. Commonwealth, 152 Ky., 589 (1913)]. The State courts held the act of 1906 not to be in violation of section 3 of the Bill of Rights or of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, as being class legislation, inasmuch as it did not expressly forbid persons other than producers of farm products from also combining for the purpose of obtaining higher prices [Owen County Burley Tobacco Society v. Brumback, 128 Ky., 137 (1908); Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co. of America, 131 Ky., 551 (1909)]. The State courts, in order to meet the contention that the term "real value" was not definite, declared that obviously the real value of any commodity was "its market value under fair competition and under normal market conditions" [Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co. of America, 131 Ky.,551 (1909); Commonwealth v. Hodges, 137 Ky., 233 (1910); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 137 Ky., 668 (1910); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 147 Ky., 564 (1912)].

Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court of the United States, in International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U. S., 216 (1914), held the antitrust provisions of the constitution and laws of Kentucky, as construed together by the highest court of the State, to be unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, declaring that the "elements necessary to determine the imaginary ideal," "real value" as used in the statute, "are uncertain both in nature and degree of effect to the acutest commercial mind." In Collins v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U. S., 634 (1914), (see also Malone v. Commonwealth of Kentucky,234 U.S., 639 (1914) the court said "that the statute in its reference to 'real value' prescribed no standard of conduct that it was possible to know; that it violated the fundamental principles of justice embraced in the conception of due process of law in compelling men on peril of indictment to guess what their goods would have brought under other conditions not ascertainable." These decisions render null and void Laws 1906, ch. 117, and apparently also section 198 of the State constitution, but perhaps do not affect the validity of Ky. Stats., secs. 3915–3921.

1 Alabama, Stats., sec. 7579.

↑ Arkansas, Laws 1905, Act 1, as amended 1913, Act 161; Illinois, Laws 1891, p. 206, as amended in 1893 and 1907; Iowa, Stats., sec, 5060; Minnesota, Stats., sec. 8973; Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5002, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 119, sec. 1; Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, as amended in 1913, sec. 10299; North Dakota, Laws 1907, chap. 259, sec. 1; South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, sec. 1; Utah, Stats., sec. 1753. Chicago, Wilmington & Vermilion Coal Co. et al. v. People, 214 Ill., 421 (1905).-The soft-coal operators of northern Illinois formed an association, one of the objects of which was to regulate and fix the price at which coal should be sold by its members. In a criminal action in the Cook County (Ill.) courts this was held a violation of section 46 of the Criminal Code and the Antitrust Act of 1891, and conspiracy under the common law. The decision was affirmed in both the appellate and supreme courts of the State.

State v. Minneapolis Milk Co., 144 N. W., 417 ( Minn., 1913).—Minneapolis milk dealers who controlled a large percentage of the trade of the city formed a milk dealers' association and agreed to raise prices. It was charged that the agreement was a violation of section 5168, revised laws, 1905. The Minneapolis Milk Co., a corporation, and another defendant, one Ruhnke, demanded a separate trial. Both were convicted and fined. On appeal the judgment was sustained as to Ruhnke but modified as to the corporation by remitting the fine, on the ground that the statute provides specifically for forfeiture of the charter of a corporation convicted under the act and that it was not intended that both fine and forfeiture should be visited on a corporation.

Minnesota prohibits pools in restraint of trade or which regulate the price of any article "of trade, manufacture or use, bought and sold within the State," and further, prohibits pools, etc., which "prevent or limit competition" in the purchase and sale thereof.

The laws of Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Carolina vary from that of Alabama in that they prohibit the regulation or the maintenance of the price of any article of manufacture, mechanism, merchandise, commodity, convenience, repair, any product of mining or any article or thing whatsoever, and apply also to the regulation of property insurance premiums.

The law of North Dakota differs from the Alabama statute principally in that it also prohibits fixing or limiting the amount or quantity of any article, commodity, etc., to be manufactured, mined, produced, "exchanged," or sold in the State.

Arizona prohibits combinations to pool any interests in connection with the manufacture, sale, or transportation of any article or commodity, that its price may in any way be affected.1

Nine other States (California, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Texas) have substantially similar laws.2

The California, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio laws omit the word "manufacture."

In Nebraska the word "manufacture" is omitted and "production" substituted.

Mississippi extends the prohibition to interests in connection with the "importation, production or price" of a commodity.

In Texas the word "manufacture" is omitted, but the law extends the prohibitions to the pooling of interests in connection with the "purchase" of any article or commodity or the charge for insurance or for the preparation of any product for market, or transportation.

While the above are the commonest types of State laws against pooling, other forms have been adopted in various States, in some cases, in addition to one of the provisions above noted.

Iowa prohibits any person, corporation, etc., operating any business of buying, selling, handling, consigning, or transporting any commodity or article of commerce, from forming, entering, maintaining, or contributing to any pool for the prevention of full and free competition among buyers, sellers, or dealers in any commodity or any article of commerce.3

Missouri and South Carolina prohibit persons, corporations, etc., engaged in buying or selling any article or thing, from entering into

1 Arizona, Laws 1912, chap. 73, sec. 1.

1 California, Laws 1907, chap. 530, sec. 1; Kansas, Laws 1897, chap. 265, sec. 1, G. S., sec. 5142; Louisiana, Laws 1892, Act 90, sec. 1; Michigan, P. A. 1899, No. 255, sec. 1; Nebraska, R. S. (1913), sec. 4017; Ohio, G. C., sec. 6391; Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5002, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 119, sec. 1; North Dakota, Laws 1907, chap. 239, sec. 2; Texas, G. L. 1903, Chap. XCIV, sec. 1.

Iowa, Laws 1909, chap. 225, sec. 1.

any pool, etc., to control or limit the trade in any such article or to limit competition in such trade by refusing to buy from or sell to any other person or corporation such article or thing for the reason that such person or corporation is not a member of the pool.1

New Jersey prohibits agreements, and understandings without express agreement, by which the parties preclude free and unrestricted competition among themselves, or any purchaser or consumer in the sale or transportation of any article or commodity either by pooling or in any other manner by which the price might be affected."

The following statutes relate only to pooling in certain lines of business or for special purposes:

Georgia prohibits pools to lessen competition in the business of insurance transacted in that State.3

Kansas and Nebraska prohibit combinations of grain dealers or others "for the pooling of prices of different and competing dealers and buyers, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such dealers and buyers, or any portion thereof." Nebraska has also a substantially similar statute relating to combinations of dealers and sellers of coal or lumber.5

Another section of the Nebraska statutes in substance prohibits persons, etc., dealing in, handling, or consigning grain, from forming, maintaining, or contributing to, any pool for the prevention of competition among buyers, sellers, or dealers in grain, or which tends to prevent the fullest competition in the purchase, sale, or dealing in grain by persons, etc., not doing business through such pool, or the prevention of competition by requiring members not to deal with nonmembers, or which requires its members to refuse to sell, purchase, or consign grain to any person, etc., who purchases or receives grain from nonmembers, or which has for one of its objects the prevention of any person, etc., not shipping grain through elevators, whether operated by members or not, from finding purchasers, by boycotting, or threatening to boycott, such purchasers."

Montana forbids warehousemen to enter into any contract, agreement, combination, or understanding with any other warehousemen at any railway station whereby the amount of grain to be received or handled by the warehouses at such station shall be equalized or pooled between said warehouses, or whereby the profits or earnings shall be divided or pooled or apportioned in any manner.7

1 Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, sec. 10300, as amended in 1913; South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, sec. 5. New Jersey, Laws 1913, chap. 13, sec. 1.

3 Georgia, Code, sec. 2466,

4 Kansas, Laws 1887, chap. 175, sec. 1; G. S., sec. 5182; Nebraska, Comp. Stats., sec. 7978.

5 Nebraska, R. S. (1913), sec. 4026.

Nebraska, Laws 1897, chap. 80, sec. 1.

7 Montana, Laws 1915, chap. 69, sec. 1.

Mississippi prohibits combinations to prevent by pooling the separate and individual bidding for the performance of a public work for the State, or any county, municipality, or levee board thereof."

Nebraska and Oklahoma prohibit combinations of bridge builders or contractors or others "for the pooling of prices of different competing bridge contractors or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such contractors, or any portion thereof."2

Washington prohibits commission merchants from entering into any 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.

Section 6. Price control.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.-The constitutions of Arizona (Art. XIV, sec. 15) and Washington (Art. XII, sec. 22) 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 fix the prices of any product or commodity.

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. The constitution of Montana (Art. XV, sec. 20) forbids any corporation, person, etc., to form directly or indirectly any trust or make any contract for the purpose of fixing the price of any article of commerce, or product of the soil, for consumption by the people.

The constitution of Idaho (Art. XI, sec. 18) prohibits any corporation, association of persons, or stock company from directly or indirectly combining or contracting with any corporation for the purpose of fixing the price of any article of commerce or of the produce of the soil or of consumption by the people.

South Dakota (Const., Art. XVII, sec. 20) has a similar provision, except that it prohibits fixing the prices of "any product or commodity so as to prevent competition in such prices" or to establish excessive prices therefor.

The constitutions of Utah (Art. XII, sec. 20) and North Dakota Sec. 116) prohibit and declare unlawful and against public policy, any combination by individuals, corporations, or associations, hav

1 Mississippi, Code 1906, see 500%.

* Nebraska, R. S. (1913), sec. 4037; Oklahoma, Comp. Laws 1909, sec. 8820; see also Indiana Antitrus Law of 1907, sec. 3, under "Restraint of competition" (p. 162).

Washington, Remington & Ballinger's Code (1910), sec. 7032.