398 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



In order that the statute might be better understood a circular 

 letter as follows was sent to the manager of every creamery in the 

 state about August first : 



Sib: 



I am in receipt of your communication of the 3d inst., requesting an 

 interpretation of Chapter 222, Acts of the Thirty-third General Assembly 

 which amends section 5028-b of the Supplement to the Code, 1907, relating 

 to unfair discrimination. You request to be advised specifically: 



1. As to whether the Act requires a purchaser of cream to pay the 

 same price to all persons throughout the state on the same day. 



2. In the case of a cream purchasing agent, buying cream in the 

 locality where there is a local creamery, is the cream purchasing agent 

 permitted to pay a higher price in that locality than is paid by his em- 

 ployer elsewhere, and if so to what extent? 



3. If the purchaser raises the test on butter fat above what is actually 

 shown by the test would this constitute a violation of the Act? 



4. Is the Food and Dairy Department charged with any responsibility 

 in the enforcement of this statute? 



1 and 2. Your first and second questions are so closely related that 

 they may be answered jointly. 



The purpose of the Act was to prohibit any person, firm, company, utsfs^ 

 elation or corporation doing business in this state and engaged in the 

 business of buying milk, cream or butter fat for the purpose of manu- 

 facture, or of buying poultry, eggs or grain for the purpose of sale or 

 storage from destroying the business of a competitor or creating a mono- 

 poly by paying different prices in different parts of the state for the same 

 grade and quality of the article purchased after making due allowance for 

 the difference in transportation from the point of purchase to the point 

 of manufacture,sale or storage. The thing prohibited by the Act is the 

 discrimination in price for an illegal purpose, yiz: For the destroying 

 of competition or the creating of a monopoly. The Act itself, however, 

 permits the paying of a different price in one place than is paid generally 

 by the same person at different points throughout the state, provided the 

 change in price is made in good faith to meet competition in a particular 

 locality. 



3. The payment of a different price than that generally paid throughout 

 the state for the same article, considering the difference in cost of trans- 

 portation, by the indirect method of fraudulently reading the butter fat 

 test is as clearly illegal and a violation of the Act as though a different 

 price were paid in the regular way, provided that this is done for the 

 purpose of destroying the business of a competitor or creating a monopoly. 



4. The enforcement of this act is by section 5028-e of the Supplement 

 to the Code, 1907, especially enjoined upon the county attorney and the 

 attorney general. 



I conclude therefore, that the only duty incumbent upon you in refer- 

 ence to this Act is that which necaasarily results from the nature of the 

 Act and its relation to your department. 



