State Anti-Trust Laws. 
145 
the effectiveness of these laws, and the construction that the 
courts will put upon them. In general, their purpose is to 
strengthen the provisions of the common law, and to provide 
adequate penalties for their violation. It would seem that if 
the law is framed with a due regard to the constitution and a 
clear understanding of the difficulties to be met with in enforc¬ 
ing it, an anti-trust law can be formulated that will ensure con¬ 
viction. In most of the states, however, these considerations 
have not always been observed, and consequently the laws are 
either unconstitutional or entirely unsuited to the object for 
which they were designed. 
The Missouri law which was copied in Iowa, is of this char¬ 
acter. The law prohibits corporations from entering into cer¬ 
tain combinations, and requires them to file an affidavit with 
the Secretary of State that they have not entered into such 
combinations, and in default of such affidavit, after due notice, 
authorizes the Secretary of State to revoke their charters. That 
officer accordingly called upon all the corporations of the state 
to file the required affidavit. Some did, and some did not, and 
the Secretary of State then proceeded to publish an order re¬ 
voking the charters of the latter, but without effect. In the 
Supreme Court of the state 24 it was held that the requirement 
that the corporation inform the Secretary of State whether such 
corporation has violated such act (for the punishment of pools, 
trusts, and combinations) is in conflict with the constitutional 
declaration that “ no person shall be compelled to testify against 
himself in a criminal case,” and the section is therefore void. 
On the other hand, the New York law approved June 7, 1890 
(session laws 1890, page 1069, No. 7), has not only been sus¬ 
tained, but has proved effective in securing conviction. The 
principles underlying the law are clearly presented in the de¬ 
cision of the Court of Appeals of New York in the case of Peo¬ 
ple v. Sheldon et al. 25 The court held that in determining cases 
brought under this law the question is, "Is the agreement be¬ 
tween the parties, in view of what may be done under it and 
the fact that it is an agreement the effect of which is to pre- 
24 The State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. The Simmons Hardware Co., 109 Mo. 118. 
26 34 Northeastern Reporter 785, and 54 N. Y. S. Rep. 513. 
10 
