LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. 39 
cooperative associations, is similar to that found in a number of 
the States: 
No association organized hereunder shall be deemed to be a combination 
in restraint of trade or an illegal monopoly ; or an attempt to lessen com- 
petition or fix prices arbitrary, nor shall the marketing contracts or agree- 
ments between the association and its members, or any agreements authorized 
in this act be considered illegal or in restraint of trade. tt 
In California the antitrust act provides that, 
No agreement, combination, or association shall be deemed to be unlawful 
* * * the object and business of which are to conduct its operations at a 
reasonable profit or to market at a reasonable profit those products which 
can not otherwise be so marketed. 
In Ohio a statute was enacted in 1921 which places jurisdiction 
over cooperative associations which have met certain requirements 
of the law under the public utilities commission of that State. It 
is therein made the duty of the commission, in case it believes 
that any such association "Restrains trade or lessens competition 
to such an extent that the price of any agricultural product is en- 
hanced beyond the cost of production plus a reasonable profit," to 
proceed against such an association for the purpose of causing it to 
" Cease and desist from so restraining trade and lessening com- 
petition in such article." The Ohio statute in many particulars is 
similar to the Capper- Volstead Act, which will be discussed later. 
SECTION 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT. 
This section reads as follows : 
That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. 
Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the exist- 
ence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, insti- 
tuted 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 or- 
ganizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combina- 
tions 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 of farmers 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 de- 
sired, to adopt methods of conducting their operations denied to other 
lawful business organizations. In a case 36 decided by the Supreme 
a Tobacco Growers' Cooperative Association v. Jones, (1923) North Carolina ; 
Hollingsworth v. Texas Hay Ass'n., (Texas) 246 S. W. 1068. 
36 Duplex Co. v, Deering, 254 U. S. 443 ; see also Buyer v. Guillan, 271 Fed. 65. 
