that to declare that some of the class engaged in domestic trade or commerce shall be deemed criminals if they violate the regulations prescribed by the State for the purpose of protecting the public against illegal combinations formed to destroy competition and to control prices, and that others of the same class shall not be bound to regard those regulations, but may combine their capital, skill or acts to destroy competition and control prices for their special benefit, is so manifestly a denial of the equal protection of the laws that further or extended argument to establish that position would seem to be unnecessary." However, it may be noted in this connection, as exemplifying the diversity of views upon these vital questions that Judge Manton, delivering the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Weed & Co. vs. Lockwood,[1] rules "that Congress could make this classification and it be held not in contravention of the Constitution, International Harvester Co. vs. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199," and Judge Hough, a member of the same Court, and concurring in the opinion, says: "It would also be constitutionally obnoxious, because it is a gross piece of class legislation—incapable of distinction from that condemned in Connolly vs. Union, etc., Co., 184 U. S. 540."
The objections are so many, if the assumed interpretation of the act is to stand, that the only difficulty is to know where to begin, or how many of them to discuss.
Let us start by paraphrasing the Act as thus incorrectly interpreted. Its provisions would then mean (1) that no owner of merchandise had longer any right to
- ↑ Weed & Co. vs. Lockwood, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (not yet reported). Opinion of District Court in 264 Fed. Rep. 453. 1920.
