Show STATUTE IS SET ASIDE Illinois AntiTrust Law Unconstitutional Un-constitutional I DID NOT PROTECT ALL I 1 PKr J United States Supreme Court Passes Upon the Act Especial Stress Being Be-ing Lad Upon the Ninth Section Exempting Farm Products This Provision Held to Be Antagonistic t the Provisions of the Constitution Constitu-tion Which Grants Equal Protection Protec-tion to All Harlans Opinion Washington March lOThe United States Supreme court today decided the Illinois antitrust slatute to be unconstitutional uncon-stitutional because of the provision of the law exempting agricultural products and live stock from the operations of the law The decision was rendered In the case of Thomas Connelly and others against the Union Sewer Pipe company of Ohio and was delivered by Justice Harlan CAUSE OF ACTION Tho ease grew out of the sale or pipe by the Pipe company to Connelly and others who after securing It declined to make payment on the ground that the Pipe company is an Illegal combination combina-tion for the restraint of trade under the common law because It combines a number of local pipemanufacturing concerns that it Is a combination in violation of the Sherman antitrust law and further a violation of the anti trust law of the State of Illinois OPINION BASED ON THIRD PLEA The first two contentions received very slight consideration the court holding that even If I the allegations were true they could not justly prevent the corporation selling its property The opinion therefore was based on the third plea which Justice HsuIan said would be valid if the State law could bo held In ho vnllrl 1 JIQ < 1ini 11 v u 4A 11W4 S J Ullill IJU I1U doubt of the purport of the act Under that law the corporation could be dissolved dis-solved If the law is valid STRESS UPON NINTH SECTION He quoted the law at length laying especial stress upon the ninth section exempting farm products concluding I that this provision Is antagonistic to the provisions of tha Constitution granting equal protection to nil under grnlng I He also held that the exempting clause Is l so Interwoen with other portions of POIlons the statute as to render it Impossible to eliminate it from the law as entirety and therefore held that the entire law must be held to be invalid entre CAME ON WRIT OF ERROR Justice Harlan said that the case had come to the Supreme court on a writ of error from the Circuit court n of the United State for the Northern district < r of Illinois which had held IlnoIs the State antitrust law to be unconstllullonal because of th < provision dlBcrlmlnatlng in favor of farm products I grew out of actions by the pipe to alons company recover re-cover on negotiable notes given by Con nolly and William E Doc for pipe received ceived by them under contract SECTION OF LAW QUOTED Section 9 of the Illlnoia law Jlnolf upon which JUt c Ilarlans opinion was based Is to the effect that The base th provisions pro-visions of this act shall not apply to agricultural products or live slocJc while In the hands of tho le stoee First stating what could be dono un der the statute without the I exempting provision Justice Harlan said that the arrangement or combination between the Union Sewer Pipe company and the other companies corporations and COIrntoml nrm created and constituted such a consttute trust as tho Illinois statute forbids ia forbid r anltcst from the evidence In the rec POINTS MADE CLEAR I IB equally clear that If J the plaintiff was an Illinois corporation Its charter could be forfeited and an end put to Its corporate existence by proceedings Instituted tho State by the AttorneyGeneral of I is also clear that If the statute Is valid the defendants could vald < plead non rollablllty for the pipe purchased by them upon the ground that the plaintiff plain-tiff was an illegal combination and the contracts which It mado with the defendants de-fendants void under the statute of Illinois Illi-nois The statute expressly authorizes such a defense S EFFECT OF EXEMPTING CLAUSE He then took up the question of the effect from the exempting section sustaining sus-taining the view of the Circuit court thJ ctpnA rcngnanph I th rinH l n lutlon of the United States and further fur-ther that It Is I so connected and Interwoven Inter-woven with other sections that It act to invalidate the entire act JUSTICE UARLANS ARGUMENT Following Is n portion of the argument argu-ment In support of this position I combinations of capital skill or acts In respect of lie salo and purchase of Goods merchandise or commodities whereby the persons firms corporations or associations forming subsequent combinations combi-nations may control Of establish In their discretion tho prices of such goods merchandise mer-chandise or commodities arc hurtful to the public Interests and should bo suppressed sup-pressed It IB Impossible to perceive why hike combinations In respect of agricultural agricul-tural products and livestock ore not equally hurtful Two or more enlaced In selling drygoods or groceries or meats or fuel or clothing or medicines are undor tho Rlatutc criminals and subject to a llifo If they combine their capital Jcl or acts for tho purpose of establishing estab-lishing controlling Increasing or reducing reduc-ing prices or of provcntlng free and unrestrained un-restrained competition amongst thcni SOlVeS or others In Iho sale of their goods or merchandise but their neighbors neigh-bors who happen to bo agriculturalists and livestock rIsers may make combinations combi-nations of that character In 1 reference to their grain or livestock without Incurring tho prescribed penalty Under what rule of permissible classltlcatlon can such legislation leg-islation 0 sustained as consistent with the equal protection of tho laws MKENNA DISSENTS Jutc McKcnrta delivered a dissent He contended ing opinion that the equality of operation which the Constitution Con-stitution requled In State legislation cannot bo construed as demanding an absolute universality of operation having no regard to conditions and relations re-lations of mon Hence classification is necessary He then suggested that tho distinctions made In the Illinois statute are proper HITS SEVERAL STATES Tho decision of the court in effect declares de-clares unconstitutional the antitrust laws of Georgia Illinois Indiana Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Montana Mon-tana Nebraska North Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas and Wisconsin Wiscon-sin In each of these Stales there Is an exception in favor of live stock and agricultural products In the hands of tho raiser or producer or of labor or ganisations Under the rulings of the ganlzatons rulng court an antttrustrlaw to be constitutional constitu-tional must apply indiscrimInately to all whatever combinations with no exceptions |