OCR Text |
Show SOUTH DAKOTA ! LAW ARGUED! Washington. Nov. 1 1 Arguments I were begun today before the supremo court over the constitutionality of the, South Dakota law making It a crime j to sell, with intont to ruin competition, competi-tion, commodities In general use fit a lower price to a regularly established establish-ed dealer in one place than to one in another place within the state It Is the first time that an antl-l discrimination law has como before I j the court, and the outcome is watch-j ed with unusual Interest. i Calls Law Unreasonablr. D F. Simpson of Minneapolis, )D behalf of the Central Lumber compa ny, which has been found by the South Dakota rourls to h:uo violated, the lav, argued that the act was class I legislation that it did not apply where ' ; dealers wore in the same city and I sales were made to no persons other than 'regularly established" dealers, j and because It put an "unreasonable" restraint upon the disposition of one's property. rt |