82 BULLETIN" 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE 
and especially whether the associations were monopolies or restrain- 
ing trade, have been repeatedly before the courts. 60 
The exact basis for the conclusion of the court in each instance that 
the association involved was not a monopoly or was not engaged in 
restraint of trad* from a legal standpoint, varies, but all the cases, 
either expressly 61 or by implication 62 hold that the public policy of 
the State has been changed so as to render legal associations which, 
under old standards, would have been regarded as illegal. This 
line of reasoning appears to be correct in all instances in which a 
State has enacted a statute, or statutes, providing for the incorpora- 
tion and organization of associations of farmers. 
Clearly, if a State has enacted a statute providing for the incor- 
poration of associations of producers and authorizing such associa- 
tions to enter into contracts with their members covering the 
handling and marketing of their produce, such a statute should take 
precedence over a prior statute of the State against trusts and 
restraint of trade. It should be remembered that all of the statutes 
that have been enacted during the last few years for the incorpora- 
tion and operation of cooperative associations of producers were 
enacted subsequent to the statutes against monopolies and restraint 
of trade of the States in question. The last statute is an expression 
of the legislature of the State of equal rank with the earlier expression 
of the State legislature, and the fact that it is of later date causes it 
to supersede or to modify, in so far as this is necessary, the earlier 
statute against restraint of trade. 63 
This is true whether or not the cooperative act under which the 
association is formed contains a provision declaring that the asso- 
ciations formed thereunder are not to be deemed to be in restraint 
of trade. In fact, the courts in many of the cases that have been 
decided under cooperative statutes containing this exemption clause 
have not referred in their opinions to this provision. 
In some instances cases have arisen in which the antitrust pro- 
hibitions of the State were contained in its constitution. Of course, 
in instances of this kind, it was necessary for the court to find that 
the association was not, in fact, within the scope of this provision 
of the constitution. 64 
60 Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Jones, 185 N. C. 265, 117 S. E. 174, 33 A. L. R. 
231 (1923) ; Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Schulte, 113 Kan. 672. 216 P. 311 (1923) ; 
Oregon Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Lentz. 107 Or. 561, 212 P. 811 (1923) ; Brown v. Staple 
Cotton Co-op. Ass'n, 132 Miss. 859. 96 So. 849 (1923) ; Northern Wisconsin Co-op. To- 
bacco Pool v. Bekkedal, 182 Wis. 571, 197 N. W. 936 (1924) ; Dark Tobacco Growers' 
Co-op Ass'n v. Dunn, 150 Tenn. 614, 266 S. W. 308 (1924) ; Potter v. Dark Tobacco 
Growers' Co-op Ass'n, 201 Ky. 441, 257 S. W. 33 (1923) ; Colma Vegetable Ass'n v. 
Bonetti, Cal. App. , 267 P. 172 ; Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v . Mason, 
150 Tenn. 228, 263 S. W. 60 (1924) ; Minnesota Wbeat Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Huggins, 
162 Minn. 471, 203 N. W. 420 (1925) ; List v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 
114 Ohio St. 361, 151 N. E. 471 (1926) ; Washington Cranberry Growers' Ass'n v. Moore, 
117 Wash. 430, 201 P. 773, 204 P. 811 (1921) ; Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union, 103 Or. 
514 201 P. 222, 205 P. 970 ; Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Rogers, Ind. 
-, 150 N. E. 384 (1926) ; Nebraska Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Norquest. 113 Neb. 731, 
204 N. W. 798 (1925) ; Clear Lake Co-op. Live Stock Shippers' Ass'n v. Weir, 200 Iowa 
1293, 206 N. W. 297 (1925) ; Lee v. Clearwater Growers' Ass'n. Fla. , 111 So. 
722 (1927) ; Rifle Potato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Smith, 78 Colo. 171, 240 P. 937 (1925). 
61 Rifle Potato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Smith. 78 Colo. 171, 240 P. 937 ; Northern Wis- 
consin Co-op. Tobacco Pool v. Bekkedal. 182 Wis. 571, 197 N. W. 936 ; Kansas Wheat 
Growers' Ass'n v. Schulte, 113 Kans. 672, 216 P. 311. 
• 3 Brown v. Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n, 132 Miss. 859, 96 So. 849 ; List v. Burley 
Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 114 Ohio St. 361, 151 N. E. 471. 
63 Rifle Potato Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Smith, 78 Colo. 171, 240 P. 937 ; Northern Wis- 
consin Co-op. Tobacco Pool v. Bekkedal, 182 Wis. 511, 197 N. W. 936 ; Clear Lake Co-op. 
Live Stock Shippers' Ass'n v. Weir, 200 Iowa 1293, 206 N. W. 297. 
M Brown v. Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n, 132 Miss. 859, 96 So. 849. 
