in any district court of the State, as to all of its practices, prices, rates and charges." It is further declared to be the duty of any person, corporation, etc., engaged in any public business to render its services. or offer its commodities upon reasonable terms without discrimination and adequately to the needs of the public, considering the facilities of said business.1

1

In Wisconsin, if any improvement maintained under any franchise granted pursuant to chapter 755, Laws of 1913, shall be owned, leased, trusteed, possessed, or controlled by any device permanently,

1 Oklahoma, Laws 1908, chap. 83, sec. 13.

Under the authority of this section the Corporation Commission directed the Tishomingo Ice & Cold Storage Co. to deliver ice to all persons in Tishomingo, required scales to be carried on each wagon and ice to be weighed when requested by consumers; fixed the price at which the Ada Ice & Fuel Co. should sell ice to different classes of consumers in Ada; directed the Mangum Ice & Cold Storage Co. to deliver ice to all parties within the corporate limits of Mangum and fixed the prices; directed the Geary Light & Ice Co. to keep its plant clean and sanitary and to adopt measures to protect ice in process of manufacture from contamination; imposed a fine of $100.00 on the Pauls Valley Ice Co. for refusing to deliver ice as directed in a previous order; and directed the Tishomingo Ice & Cold Storage Co. to deliver ice to consumers and fixed the price thereof.

A complaint alleging that a certain cotton buyer paid more for cotton ginned by his gin than for cotton ginned by others, was dismissed by the Commission, which held that there being several cotton buyers in the town without any understanding or combination as to prices, a virtual monopoly did not exist, and that they had no jurisdiction of such a case.

The Harriss-Irby Cotton Co. was directed to gin custom cotton at prices fixed by the Commission. Held, that before a person who had dedicated private property to a public use could withdraw the same, he must give a reasonable notice in advance of such action. Appealed to State Supreme Court and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Regulations for weighing cotton at compresses were prescribed; the Commission holding that where cotton was "docked" for dampness or other causes, the actual weights together with the amount each bale was "docked" should be submitted to both parties and that the cotton should be reweighed at the request of either party. The Commission states that this order was resisted at the time it was issued, but that it has been complied with, has given satisfaction, and that both buyers and the compresses would now object to its repeal.

Certain oil companies selling oil stoves to farmers agreed to furnish them oil in barrel lots at jobber's prices. After stoves were installed, local dealers objected to this arrangement. Complaint was filed and the Commission directed the Waters-Pierce Oil Co., the Texas Co., and the Oklahoma Oil Co. to sell kerosene in quantities of one barrel or more at the same price. The Commission states that this order is being strictly obeyed.

The Texas Oil Co. and the Waters-Pierce Oil Co. were directed to sell gasoline in Idabel, Okla., at the same price as in other sections of the country, plus any additional transporation charge and distributing expense.

The Mellon Co., a retail dry goods house, filed a complaint alleging that the Daily Oklahoman had a virtual monopoly of all morning advertising in Oklahoma City and had refused to accept its advertising because of a controversy over other business transactions, and asked that the newspaper be required to advertise for the complainant at the same rate charged similar concerns. The Commission found that it was the duty of the Oklahoman to advertise for the Mellon Co. but made no order. The newspaper, however, complied with the suggestions of the Commission.

Upon a complaint filed by an independent lumberyard, alleging that other yards were selling at or below cost for the purpose of destroying competition, the Commission directed the lumberyards at Cherokee to sell lumber to all without discrimination in price for the same quality and quantity, and that lumber should not be sold without a profit for the purpose of driving a competitor out of business.

A complaint asking that the Cordell Gin & Milling Co. be required to sell its products to certain retail merchants was dismissed, the Commission holding that it had no jurisdiction in the regulation of a private business which deals with the public unless a virtual monopoly is shown.

Five laundries which combined under the name of the Oklahoma Operating Co., and increased prices were directed not to increase their prices over those charged prior to the combination without securing the permission of the Commission after a proper showing that the prices should be advanced. Held, further, that the Commission had no jurisdiction to dissolve the combination, this being for the courts. The Commission states that "the order in this case has been complied with to the letter, and the people do not complain of the combination but all are apparently satisfied."

The Mahoney Bus, Baggage, Carriage & Taxicab Co. was directed to transfer all baggage under similar conditions for the same price and to accept any baggage tendered.

temporarily, directly, indirectly, tacitly, or in any manner whatsoever, so that the same form part of, or in any way effect any combination, or shall be in any wise controlled by an unlawful trust, or form the subject of any contract or conspiracy to limit the output of any hydraulic or hydroelectric power derived therefrom or in any manner or in any degree in restraint of trade in the generation, sale, or distribution of hydraulic or hydroelectric power derived therefrom, the State may take possession as in cases of receivership, and the members of the railroad commission shall act as receivers during such period as the court may determine.1

The law of Texas declares all buildings which are used for public performances, the production or exhibition of plays, and shows of whatever nature, to which admission fees are charged, to be "public houses of amusement" and subject to regulation. It is further declared unlawful to discriminate against reputable shows or other productions. Failure or refusal to rent such houses of amusement upon such terms as shall not be deemed unreasonable, extortionate, or prohibitive is a misdemeanor. If it be shown that such houses have been already rented and that other bookings have, in good faith, been made for the dates applied for, and that such renting and booking was not with the intention of evading the act, the penalties will not be imposed. The persons in charge of such houses are required to keep a list of all bookings, with the dates specifically set out, and to exhibit same upon request to those who, in good faith, desire to rent such houses.2

The law of Utah provides that all persons, associations, and corporations engaged in the business of buying, gathering, or accumulating information or news for publication, and vending, supplying, distributing, or disseminating the same for publication, either to their members or otherwise, shall be deemed to be engaged in a business upon which a public interest is ingrafted, and shall make no distinction with respect to newspaper publishers desiring to purchase such news or information for publication.3

Section 15. Recognition of common-law principles.

A few of the State antitrust statutes contain specific references to the common law.

In the Michigan antitrust law of June 16, 1905, it is provided that nothing in this act shall be construed to impair or invalidate agreements or contracts known to the common law and in equity as those relating to good will of trade."

1 Wisconsin, Stats. 1913, secs. 1596-72.

Texas, Rev. Crim. Stats., 1911, arts. 1480-1482.

* Utah, Comp. Laws, 1907, sec. 1762x. Cf. Kansas, Gen. Stats., 1909, chap. 85; and Arkansas Laws, 1913, Act No. 51.

4 Michigan, P. A. 1905, No. 229, sec. 1.

Section 1 of the antitrust act of June 20, 1905, provides that "all agreements and contracts by which any person, copartnership or corporation promises or agrees not to engage in any avocation, employment, pursuit, trade, profession or business, whether reasonable or unreasonable, partial or general, limited or unlimited, are hereby declared to be against public policy and illegal and void.” Section 6, however, provides that "this act shall not apply to any contract mentioned in this act nor in restraint of trade, where the only object of the restraint imposed by the contract is to protect the vendee or transferee of a trade, pursuit, avocation, profession or business, or the good will thereof, sold and transferred for a valuable consideration in good faith and without any intent to create, build up, establish or maintain a monopoly."

In North Carolina, the antitrust law of 1913 provides, "that any act, contract, combination in the form of trust, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce which violates the principles of the common law is hereby declared to be in violation of section one of this act," but provides further, "that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent a person, firm or corporation from selling his or its business and good will to a competitor, and agreeing in writing not to enter the business in competition with the purchaser in a limited territory, as is now allowed under the common law: Provided, such agreement shall not violate the principles of the common law against trusts and shall not violate the provisions of this act."

Mississippi prohibits combinations, contracts, understandings, or agreements, expressed or implied, to engross or forestall a commodity.3

* *

The Georgia Code provides that "a contract which is against the policy of the law can not be enforced; such are contracts * in general in restraint of trade."4 Forestalling, engrossing, or regrating is prohibited.

Massachusetts declares illegal "every contract, agreement, arrangement or combination in violation of the common law in that thereby a monopoly in the manufacture, production or sale in this commonwealth of any article or commodity in common use is or may be created, established or maintained," etc."

Section 16. Administration.

With respect to the officials charged with the duty of enforcing the antitrust laws, the statutes may be divided into four broad classes: (a) Those which impose this duty upon the attorney general.

1 Michigan, P. A. 1905, No. 329, secs. 1, 6.

2 North Carolina, Laws 1913, chap. 41, secs. 2, 5.

Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5002, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 119, sec. 1.

4 Georgia, Code 1914, sec. 4253.

Georgia, Code 1914, sec. 707.

• Massachusetts, Laws 1908, chap. 454, sec. 1.

(b) Those which impose the duty upon the attorney general and/or county or district attorneys or solicitors.

(c) Those which impose the duty upon county or district attorneys, but under the direction of the attorney general.

(d) Those which impose the duty upon county or district attor

neys.

In addition to the provisions noted above may be mentioned those which authorize certain proceedings by, or at the instance of, private citizens.

ATTORNEYS GENERAL.-In 26 States (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) the attorney general is required to enforce the antitrust laws or certain provisions thereof, especially in proceedings to annul charters or revoke the right of a foreign corporation to do business in the State.1 ATTORNEYS GENERAL-COUNTY OR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.-In 22 States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming), some of which require certain provisions to be enforced by the attorney general, as noted above, the general enforcement of the law is left to the attorney general and/or county or district attorneys."

The law of Texas, noted above, provides that "prosecutions under this act may be instituted and prosecuted by any county or district attorney of this State, and when any such prosecutions have been

1 Arkansas, Laws 1913, No. 161, secs. 10, 11; California, Laws 1907, chap. 530, sec. 3; Colorado, Laws 1913, chap. 161, sec. 4; Florida, Comp. Laws, 1914, sec. 3161; Idaho, Laws 1911, chap. 215, secs. 5, 7; Indiana, Burn's Ann. St., sec. 3879; Kansas, Laws 1899, chap. 293, sec. 4, Laws 1905, chap. 2, sec. 3, Laws 1909, chap. 261, sec. 1; Louisiana, Laws 1892, Act 90, secs. 2, 3, Laws 1908, Act 128, sec. 4; Massachusetts, Laws 1913, chap. 709, sec. 1; Michigan, P. A. 1899, No. 255, sec. 3, P. A. 1905, No. 229, sec. 5, P. A. 1913, No. 135, secs. 5, 7; Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5005, as amended by Laws 1910, chap. 223, Code 1906, sec. 5006; Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, sec. 10318; Montana, Laws 1913, chap. 7, sec. 2, chap. 8, sec. 2; Nebraska, Comp. Stats., 1911, secs. 6302e, 6302h, 6302k, Laws 1913, chap. 114; New Jersey, Laws 1913, chap. 13, sec. 4; New York, Cons. Laws, chap. 20, sec. 342; North Carolina, Laws 1913, chap. 41, sec. 13; North Dakota, Laws 1907, chap. 259, secs. 10, 11, Laws 1907, chap. 260, secs. 5, 7, Laws 1913, chap. 287, sec. 2; Ohio, G. C., sec. 6394, as amended by Act of May 8, 1913; Oklahoma, act of June 10, 1908, secs. 2, 8, 12, Laws 1913, chap. 114, sec. 2; South Carolina, Civ. Code, 1912, sec. 2438; Tennessee, Laws 1903, chap. 140, sec. 2; Texas, Laws 1903, Chap. XCIV, sec. 8; Utah, Laws 1913, chap. 41, sec. 2; Wisconsin, Stats., secs. 17911, 1770i, 1791n-11, 1791n-12; Wyoming, Laws 1911, chap. 62, secs. 3, 4.

2 Arizona, Laws 1912, chap. 73, sec. 4; California, Laws 1907, chap. 530, sec. 2; Colorado, Laws 1913, chap. 161, secs. 3, 5, 8; Florida, G. S. 1906, sec. 3163; Illinois, Act of June 11, 1891, as amended in 1893 and 1907, sec. 8; Indiana, Antitrust Law of 1907, sec. 5; Iowa, Code sec. 5067; Kansas, G. S., secs. 5145, 5146, 5191; Louisiana, Laws 1892, No. 90, sec. 4; Massachusetts, Laws 1912, chap. 651, sec. 6; Michigan, P. A. 1899, No. 255, sec. 2, P. A. 1913, No. 135, sec. 4; Minnesota, Stats., sec. 8974; Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5004, as amended by Laws 1910, chap. 222, Code 1906, sec. 5016, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 204; Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, as amended in 1913, secs. 10303, 10317, 10326; Nebraska, Comp. Stats., sec. 6301h; North Dakota, Laws 1907, chap. 259, sec. 14, and chap. 260, sec. 4; Ohio, G. C., sec. 6400, as amended by Act May 8, 1913; Oklahoma, Act June 10, 1908, sec. 9; South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, secs. 4, 7; South Dakota, Laws 1909, chap. 224, sec. 8; Texas, Laws 1903, Chap. XCIV, as amended by G. L. 1907, chap. 456, sec. 21; Wyoming, Laws 1911, chap. 62, sec. 2.

instituted by any county or district attorney, such officer shall forthwith notify the Attorney General of such fact, and it is hereby made the duty of the Attorney General, when he shall receive such notice, to join such officer in such prosecution and do all in his power to secure the enforcement of this act." 1

ATTORNEY GENERAL-COUNTY OR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS UNDER DIRECTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. Six States (Idaho, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah) provide that these laws, or certain provisions thereof, may be enforced by the attorney general or by county or district attorneys under the direction of the attorney general. In Wisconsin the district attorneys institute proceedings under certain sections of the law upon the "advice" of the attorney general.2

COUNTY OR DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. In some instances the duty of enforcing the law is given directly to county or district attorneys. In Kansas the neglect or refusal of the county attorneys to enforce the law of 1889 is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment and forfeiture of office. Upon such neglect or refusal the attorney general is charged with the duty of enforcing the law.3

In Louisiana the criminal provisions of the antidiscrimination act are enforced by the district attorneys, the attorney general appearing in appeals.*

In Missouri the prosecuting attorneys are required to proceed against corporations for the forfeiture of charters or the right to do business upon the failure of such corporations to file certain affidavits required by law.5

PROCEEDINGS BY OR ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE CITIZENS.--The Indiana antitrust law of 1907 provides that proceedings to prevent or restrain violations of the laws on this subject may be filed by the attorney general upon his own relation or that of any private person, and that an information may be filed by any taxpayer on his own relation.R

In Michigan it is the duty of the attorney general to file an information in the nature of quo warranto, upon his own relation, or the relation of any person, on leave granted, against any corporate body whenever it shall violate any of the provisions of the antitrust act of June 16, 1905.7

1 Texas, Laws 1903, Chap. XCIV, as amended by G. L. 1907, p. 456, sec. 21.

2

* Idaho, Laws 1911, chap. 215, sec. 18; Massachusetts, Laws 1908, chap. 454, sec. 2; North Carolina, Laws 1913, chap. 41, sec. 13; Ohio, G. C., sec. 6395; Texas, Laws 1903, Chap. XCIV, secs. 11, 15, as amended by Acts 1907, p. 221, and 1909, pp. 281-282, G. L. 1907, p. 16, secs. 2, 5, G. L. 1907, p. 175, secs. 3, 5; Utah, Stats., sec. 1760; Wisconsin, Stats. 1898, sec. 1747f.

3 Kansas, Laws 1889, chap. 257, sec. 7; G. S., sec. 5191.

4 Louisiana, Laws 1908, act 128, sec. 4. * Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, sec. 10322. Indiana, Antitrust Law, 1907, sec. 5. 1 Michigan, P. A. 1905, No. 229, sec. 5.