§ 6693, subd. 7 (see § 6736, subd. 6), is substantially the same as New York Penal Code, § 168, subd. 6, which see above.

TEXAS: Penal Code, § 309, makes criminal, assemblies to prevent pursuit of occupation. So of riots. § 324.

UTAH: By Const., art. 12, § 19, also by Revised Statutes (1898), § 1340, 1341, blacklisting is made a crime; so by Const., art. 16, § 4, the exchange of blacklists is prohibited. Penal Code, § 4156, subd. 5, is the same as New York Penal Code, § 168, subd. 6, which see above.

VERMONT: By Statutes (1894), § 5041, it is a crime to "threaten violence or injury to another person with intent to prevent his employment in a mill, manufactory, shop, quarry, mine, railroad or other occupation." By § 5040, to "by threats, intimidation or by force, alone or in combination with others, affright, drive away or prevent another person from accepting, undertaking or prosecuting such employment, with intent to prevent the prosecution of work in such mill, shop, manufactory mine, quarry, railroad or other occupation."

VIRGINIA: By L. 1891-92, p. 976, it is a crime for a corporation to prevent a discharged employee from obtaining employment.

WISCONSIN: By Statutes (1898), § 4466a, it is a crime to combine to "wilfully or maliciously injure another in his reputation, trade, business or profession," or "maliciously compel another to do or perform any act against his will, or prevent or hinder another from doing or performing any lawful act." By § 44666, blacklisting is a crime. So to coerce an employee not to belong to a labor organization as a condition of employment. By § 4466c, it is a crime to "by threats, intimidation, force or coercion " hinder or prevent another from engaging or continuing in employment.

WYOMING: By L. 1893, ch. 9, it is a crime to discharge an employee because of nomination for office, or to interfere in the matter of the nomination of such employee.

13

II.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO TOPICS TREATED IN PART II.

We here consider such provisions as specifically relate to combinations to create restrictions upon competition. But we omit any reference to many provisions confined in their application to specific lines of business, such as the numerous. prohibitions against the consolidation of parallel and competing railroad or telegraph lines, or the recent provisions against combinations to fix rates of insurance. We here merely give a list of what are commonly known as "antitrust acts." In this connection reference may properly be made to the constitutional provisions in some States, specifically prohibiting monopolies, as the provision of the Texas constitution, art. 1, § 26, that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed." To similar effect are provisions in the constitutions of Arkansas (art. 2, § 19); Maryland (Declaration of Rights, art. 41); North Carolina (art. 1, § 31); Tennessee (art. 1, § 22); Wyoming (art. 1, § 30).

The following is a list of the anti-trust acts in the different States (including the Federal acts):

UNITED STATES: Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. at Large, p. 209); act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. at Large, p. 570; see § 34 of Tariff Act of 1897). ALABAMA: Criminal Code (1896), §§ 5557-59.

ARKANSAS: L. 1897, ch. 46.

CALIFORNIA: L. 1893, ch. 19 (limited to live-stock).

FLORIDA: L. 1897, ch. 4534 (limited to cattle and meat).

GEORGIA: L. 1896, p. 68; see Const., art. 4, § 2, par. 4.

IDAHO: Const., art. 11, § 18.

ILLINOIS: L. 1891, p. 206 (as amended by L. 1893, p. 89; L 1897, p. 298);

L. 1893, p. 182 (Starr & Curtis' Statutes, vol. 1, pp. 1252–57).

INDIANA: L. 1897, ch. 104.

IOWA: Code (1897), §§ 5060-67.

KANSAS: General Statutes (1897), ch. 145.

KENTUCKY: Statutes (1894), §§ 3915-20; see Const., § 198.

LOUISIANA: L. 1890, ch. 86; L. 1892, ch. 90 (Wolff's Revised Laws, pp. 204, 205). See as to rebate certificates, L. 1894, ch. 176 (Wolff's Laws, p. 907). Const. § 190.

MAINE: L. 1889, ch. 266.

MICHIGAN: Howell's Statutes (Supplement), §§ 9354j-p (L. 1889, ch.

225).

MINNESOTA: Statutes (1894), §§ 6955-57; see Const., art. 4, § 35.

MISSISSIPPI: Code (1892), § 1007; ch. 140 (see as amended by L. 1896, ch. 89; L. 1898, ch. 72); see Const., § 198.

MISSOURI: L. 1891, p. 186; see as amended by L. 1895, p. 237; L. 1897, p. 209.

MONTANA: Penal Code, § 321; see Const., art. 15, § 20. See as to combinations of laborers, Penal Code, § 325.

NEBRASKA: L. 1897, ch. 79; see chs. 80, 81; Statutes (1895), § 6959. As to rebate vouchers, see Statutes, ch. 73a.

NEW MEXICO: Compiled Laws (1897), §§ 1292-94.

NEW YORK: L. 1892, ch. 688, § 7; L. 1897, ch. 383.

NORTH CAROLINA: L 1889, ch. 374.

NORTH DAKOTA: Penal Code (1895), ch. 51; see Const., art. 7, § 146. OHIO: L. 1898, p. 143. By Revised Statutes, 7th ed., § 6934a, cornering and forestalling are made crimes.

OKLAHOMA: Statutes (1893), ch. 83.

SOUTH CAROLINA: L. 1897, ch. 265 (see as amended by L. 1898, ch. 487). See Const., art. 9, § 13.

SOUTH DAKOTA: L. 1890, ch. 154, as amended by L. 1893, ch. 171; L. 1897, ch. 94.

TENNESSEE: Code (1896), §§ 3185-91, 6622; L. 1897, ch. 94. See L. 1897, ch. 93. See Code (1896), § 3077.

TEXAS: Civil Statutes (1895), arts. 5313-21a; Penal Code, arts. 976988d.

UTAH: Revised Statutes (1898), §§ 1752-62. See Const., art. 12, § 20. WASHINGTON: Const., art. 12, § 22.

WISCONSIN: Statutes (1898), §§ 1747e-h, 1791j-m.

WYOMING: Const., art. 10 (Corporations), § 8.

on case for injury, 1, 73.

for inducing refusal to deal, 38.

who has right of, for prevention of dealing, 67.

right of, for mere restriction upon competition, 161.
see INJUNCTION.

ACTOR-

liability for interference with, 2.

AGENT-

liability of, under Texas anti-trust act, 160.

of party to agreement in restriction of competition, rights and lia-
bility of, 171.

see PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

AGREEMENT-

not to bid, as creating illegal restriction upon competition, 94, 168.
see RESTRICTION UPON COMPETITION.

constitutional limitations upon, 106.

power of Congress and States respectively to enact, 107.

extension of, beyond proper scope, 109.

see FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST ACT and under names of States.

ARTICLES OF NECESSITY.

-

ingrossing limited to, 105, 142.

doctrine against restrictions upon competition, whether confined
to, 142.

by-law or rule of, as creating illegal restriction upon competition,

148.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL-

proceeding by, 162.

as party to proceeding after dissolution of corporation, 180.