LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 85 
Instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or 
conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such 
organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof ; nor 
shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be 
illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust 
laws. 
It seems to be generally agreed that this section would appear to 
prevent the dissolution of an organization which meets the conditions 
it prescribes, namely, that it is a " labor, agricultural, or horticultural 
organization;" that it is "instituted for the purposes of mutual 
help," and does not have " capital stock;" and last, is not "conducted 
for profit." However, the few decisions of the courts relative to this 
section indicate that it does not enable them, if they desire, to adopt 
methods of conducting their operations denied to other lawful busi- 
ness organizations. In a case 75 decided by the Supreme Court involv- 
ing the legality of a secondary boycott by a labor organization it 
was said : 
As to [section] 6, it seems to us its principal importance in this discussion is 
for what it does not authorize, and for the limit it sets to the immunity con- 
ferred. The section assumes the normal objects of a labor organization to be 
legitimate, and declares that nothing in the antitrust laws shall be construed 
to forbid the existence and operation of such organizations or to forbid their 
members from lawfully carrying out their legitimate objects ; and that such 
an organization shall not be held in itself — merely because of its existence and 
operation — to be an illegal combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. 
But there is nothing in the section to exempt such an organization or its 
members from accountability where it or they depart from its normal and 
legitimate objects and engage in an actual combination or conspiracy in 
restraint of trade. And by no fair or permissible construction can it be taken 
as authorizing any activity otherwise unlawful, or enabling a normally lawful 
organization to become a cloak for an illegal combination or conspiracy in 
restraint of trade as defined by the antitrust laws. 
In a certain case, 76 the Aroostook Potato Shippers' Association, 
acting through a committee, blacklisted certain buyers of potatoes. 
Members of the association were forbidden, under penalty, to deal 
with such buyers. Persons outside the association who dealt with 
persons so blacklisted were also blacklisted and boycotted. The 
defendants, members of the association, were indicted for a con- 
spiracy in restraint of trade and were fined. The court said with 
reference to the contention that section 6 relieved the defendants : 
* * * I do not think that the coercion of outsiders by a secondary boycott, 
which was discussed in my opinion on the former indictment, can be held to be 
a lawful carrying out of the legitimate objects of such an association. That act 
means, as I understand it, that organizations such as it describes are not to be 
dissolved and broken up as illegal, nor held to be combinations or conspiracies in 
restraint of trade; but they are not privileged to adopt methods of carrying on 
their business which are not permitted to other lawful associations. 
Section 6 of the Clayton Act is still in effect and is not repealed by 
the Capper- Volstead Act. 
CAPPER- VOLSTEAD ACT 
The Capper-Volstead Act became a law on February 18, 1922. It is 
entitled "An act to authorize association of producers of agricul- 
tural products," and reads as follows: 
75 Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443; Buyer v, GuiUan, 271 F. 65. 
76 United States v. King, 229 F, 275, 250 F, 908. 
