38 bulletin: lioe, v. s. department of agriculture. 
of large combinations. In the case 32 involving the Eastern States 
Eetail Lumber Dealers' Association it appeared that this association 
was made up of a number of local retail dealers' associations in 
various States. Blacklists of all wholesale lumber dealers who sold 
direct to consumers or builders were circulated by the Eastern States 
among the local associations of lumber dealers, who in turn circulated 
such lists among the retail dealers. The evident purpose was to 
discourage the retail dealers from dealing with such wholesale deal- 
ers. The Supreme Court held that such conduct was unlawful as 
" Unduly suppressing competition," and affirmed the judgment of the 
lower court enjoining the further circulation of such reports or 
blacklists. 
A manufacturer or dealer, under the decisions of the Supreme 
Court, can not enter into agreements with those to whom he sells 
that they shall not resell except at prices named by him. 33 This is 
based on the theory that such agreements destroy competition. An 
unincorporated association 34 of hardwood-lumber manufacturers of 
various States conducted for the purpose, so it was ascertained, of 
limiting production and increasing prices through the circulation of 
reports setting forth facts concerning lumber on hand, sale prices, 
and rate of production, was held by the Supreme Court to consti- 
tute a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate com- 
merce and was therefore unlawful. The method employed was called 
the " Open Competition Plan." Under it each member of the asso- 
ciation made daily, weekly, and monthly reports giving minute 
details of their business. Later these reports were sent out in a 
condensed form to each of the members of the association. 
A conspiracy to "run a corner" in the available supply of a 
staple commodity such as cotton, normally a subject of interstate 
commerce, and thereby to enhance artificially its price throughout 
the country is within the terms of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 
which is quoted earlier in this discussion. 35 
STATE STATUTES EXEMPTING FAIiM ORGANIZATIONS. 
A large number of the States have statutory provisions which pro- 
vide that the antitrust laws of the State shall not be applicable to 
associations of farmers or that associations of farmers incorporated 
under the statute in which this provision appears shall not be subject 
to such laws. The following paragraph on this subject, from the 
act of 1921 of North Carolina providing for the incorporation of 
32 Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Assn. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600. 
■■* Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 ; United States v. A. 
Schrader's Son, Inc., 252 U. S. 85 ; Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing 
Co., 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150. 
31 American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 66 L. Ed. 159. 
3 " United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525. 
