LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 89 
All associations that wish to operate under the act must meet the 
third condition, which is that the value of the products handled for 
nonmembers shall not exceed the value of those handled for mem- 
bers. This condition does not mean that an association must handle 
any business for nonmembers. It may do so or not, as it sees fit. If 
it does handle such business, however, the act specifically provides 
that the value of the products handled for nonmembers must not 
exceed the value of the products handled for members. 
Under section 2 of the act it is the duty of the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, if he believes that any association operating under it monopo- 
lizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign commerce to such an 
extent that the price of any agricultural product is unduly enhanced 
by reason of such monopoly or restraint of trade, to serve upon such 
association a complaint with respect to such matters, requiring the 
association to show cause why an order should not be issued directing 
it to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. 
After a hearing, if the Secretary of Agriculture believes that such 
an association monopolizes or restrains trade in interstate or foreign 
commerce to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product 
is unduly enhanced thereby, the act provides that he shall issue an 
order reciting the facts found by him and directing such association 
to cease and desist from monopolization or restraint of trade. If 
such order is not complied with by the association within 30 days, the 
Secretary of Agriculture is then required to file a certified copy of 
the order issued by him, together with certified copies of all records 
in the matter, in the District Court of the United States in the judi- 
cial district in which such association has its principal place of 
business. The Department of Justice has charge, under the act, of 
the enforcement of such order. The District Court of the United 
States is given jurisdiction to affirm, modify, or set aside the order 
or to enter such other decree as it may deem equitable. 
CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURE 
The classification which the Capper- Volstead Act makes by except- 
ing producers' associations from the antitrust laws to the extent here- 
tofore indicated appears to be founded on a real distinction and to 
be entirely reasonable. Agriculture is fundamentally different from 
industry. The number engaged in agriculture or any branch thereof, 
the distances which separate them, the conditions incident to the 
production of agricultural products, the inherent difficulties involved 
in controlling acreage, the variableness of production due to climatic 
causes — the caprice of the seasons — and the number of agricultural 
products that may be substituted for each other furnish a reasonable 
basis for classification. Other instances of classification do not ap- 
pear to have more justification. For instance, the Federal Trade 
Commission act 78 condemns unfair competition by those engaged in 
interstate or foreign commerce, but banks are specifically excepted 
from the provisions of that act. That act has been repeatedly upheld 
by the Supreme Court of the United States. 79 
Moreover, in so far as the Capper-Volstead Act is concerned, it is 
questioned if there is any clause in the Federal Constitution that 
78 38 Stat. 717. 
79 Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz et al., Copartners, 253 U. S. 421, 40 S. Ct. 572 ; 
Federal Trade Commission v. Winsted Hosiery Co.. 258 U. S. 483, 42 S. Ct. 384. 
