ants is not a valid service in a case governed by the section. State ex rel. Mueller Baking Co. et al. v. Calvird, Judge, supra. In an antitrust suit it was proper to consider an agreement between two oil companies providing for rebates and the division of the territory within a State between them. State ex rel. Hadley, Attorney General v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana et al., supra. Section 8713 is inapplicable to Grand Jury Proceedings. Ex Parte Arvin, 112 S. W. (2d) 113 (1937). Application for production of witnesses under section 8735 may be made to the court or to the commissioner taking testimony, but before issuing process the court will ascertain that the testimony is material and that witnesses are competent. State ex rel. Crow, Attorney General v. Continental Tobacco Co. et al., supra. A corporation has no right to refuse to produce its books and papers in court for examination in an antitrust proceeding against it by the State. State ex rel. Hadley, Attorney General v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana et al., supra. Miscellaneous Provisions. Section 8720 purporting to grant the attorney general a fee proportional to the fines imposed in antitrust suits in which he prosecutes is unconstitutional. State ex rel. Barrett, Attorney General v. Boeckeler Lumber Co. et al., supra. Where no dedication to public use has occurred, a terminal association may grant one taxicab company an exclusive franchise to solicit passengers on its premises. Canary Taxicab Co. v. Terminal Railway Association of St. Louis, 316 Mo. 709, 294 S. W. 88 (1927); Red Top Taxicab Company v. Terminal Railway Association of St. Louis, 322 Mo. 463, 15 S. W. (2d) 758 (1929). B. EXCEPTIONS TO GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS Stat. Ann. (1932) Agriculture Cooperatives Section 12702 provides that a nonprofit agricultural cooperative association organized under sections 12676 to 12705 shall not be deemed a conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade, an illegal monopoly, or an attempt to lessen competition or fix prices arbitrarily. See Tying Contracts and Exclusive Dealing Arrangements, infra. See also Cooperatives in projected study. C. SPECIAL ANTITRUST LAWS 1. Special Industry Antitrust Acts CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Railroads Const. (1875) art. 12, sec. 17 provides that no railroad or other corporation or the lessees, purchasers, or managers of any railroad corporation shall consolidate the stock, properties, or franchises of or in any way control any railroad owning or having under its control a parallel or competing line and that no officer of such a corporation shall act as an officer of any other railroad corporation owning or having control of a competing line. The question whether the lines are parallel or competing shall be decided by a jury when demanded. STATUTORY PROVISIONS Railroads-Express Companies Sections 4806 to 4808 provide that a railroad may not refuse facilities to an express company on the ground that it already furnishes facilities to another such company. The railroad commissioners are required to see that competition in the express business is not prevented by the refusal of a railroad company to provide facilities to more than one express company at the same time. Telephone and Telegraph Companies Section 4923 provides that no company shall have the power to contract with any owner of land for the right to erect or maintain a telephone or telegraph line over his land to the exclusion of the lines of other companies. Common Carriers Section 4798 provides that it shall be unlawful for a common carrier to enter into any contract, agreement, or understanding with another common carrier for the pooling of freight or to divide earnings. Railroads Section 4688 permits the consolidation of two or more railroad companies if the lines will be made continuous, provided the consolidation does not deprive the public of competition between the roads. A consolidation contrary to these provisions is void. Commission Merchants-Farm Products Section 12655 makes entry by a commission merchant into any combination to fix the prices of farm products a misdemeanor. Livestock Markets Sections 12725 to 12732 provide that any stockyards maintained for receiving cattle, hogs, or sheep to be bought, sold, or exchanged is a public market. Any rule of an association trading at such market which limits the right of a member to distribute his profits pro rata, according to shipments made among persons comprising his firm or who are coshareholders with him in a cooperative association, shall be unlawful. It is also unlawful to refuse or delay granting membership to any person because he will distribute his profits in such manner or to limit the numbers of the members trading. Persons violating these provisions may be permanently enjoined from maintaining such a market. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1939) Section 4525g-31a provides that no person or corporation, or any employee, officer, agent, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, shall have more than three licenses to sell liquor at retail for on-premises consumption, nor be directly or indirectly interested in any such business. Section 4525g-33, as amended by L. 1939, H. B. 267, provides that conviction in any court of any violation of this act shall have the effect of automatically revoking the license of said violator. Section 4525g-3, as revised by L. 1939, S. B. 256, section 1, provides that distillers, wholesalers, wine makers, brewers, or their employees, officers, or agents, shall not, under any circumstances, directly or indirectly, have any financial interest in the retail business for sale of intoxicating liquors, and shall not, directly or indirectly, loan, give away, or furnish equipment, money, credit, or property of any kind, except ordinary commercial credit for liquors sold to such retail dealers. Any distiller, wholesaler, wine maker, or brewer who shall violate the above provisions of this section, or permit his employees, officers, or agents to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as follows: For the first offense by a fine of $1,000; for a second offense, by a fine of $5,000; and for a third offense, the license of said person shall be revoked. Stat. Ann. (Supp. 1938) Section 13139-14 provides that brewers or manufacturers of beer or of nonintoxicating beer, or their employees, officers, agents, subsidiary, or affiliate shall, under no circumstances, directly or indirectly, have any financial interest in the retail business for the sale of such beer, nor shall they, directly or indirectly, loan, give away, or furnish equipment, money, credit, or property of any kind, except ordinary commercial credit for such beer sold to such retail dealers. Section 13139-20 provides that any person violating any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, except where the punishment is specifically prescribed by this act, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than one year, or by a fine not less than $50 nor more than $1,000, or by both. See Tying Contracts and Exclusive Dealing Arrangements, infra. 2. Public Contract Provisions Stat. Ann. (1932) Paper and Stationery Section 13806 provides that bids for paper or stationery for the use of the state may be set aside by the Commissioners of Printing if they have reason to believe the bidding therefor is unfair, fraudulent, or exorbitant. See projected Vol., Governmental Purchasing. Printing Section 13792 provides that the Commissioners of Printing may set aside the bidding and relet a contract for printing if they believe that the bidding there for is unfair, fraudulent, or exorbitant through combinations or otherwise. See projected Vol., Governmental Purchasing. Construction Contracts Section 4431 provides that any collusion or combination of persons or firms for the purpose of restricting bids or limiting the number of bidders on any contract for the construction of a state highway, levee, drainage ditch, or public building shall be punished by imprisonment of from two to five years or by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars or both. See projected Vol., Governmental Purchasing. Textbooks Section 9501 provides that a textbook publisher must file a sworn statement with the State Superintendent of Public Schools that he has no understanding or agreement with any other publisher or interest in the business of any other publisher, with the effect or intent to control the prices of school textbooks or to restrict competition in the adoption or sale thereof. Section 9502 provides that before being licensed to sell school textbooks, a publisher shall file a sworn statement of the ownership of the publishing house. This must state whether the publisher or the owner of any interest in the establishment is also the owner of an interest in any other publishing house. Section 9503 provides that, if a publisher enters into a combination or agreement to restrict competition in the adoption or sale of school books or if the statements required in sections 9501 and 9502 are untrue in any respect, the attorney general shall institute proceeding for the forfeiture of the publisher's bond and for the revocation of his authority to sell school books in the state and that all contracts made by the publisher under the statute shall become void at the option of the other party thereto. See projected Vol., Governmental Purchasing. No provisions. Railroads. 3. Anticoercive Financing Statutes Judicial Decisions Art. XII, sec. 17, of the Missouri Constitution is inapplicable to companies owning lines of railroads used only in a terminal business. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Terminal Association of St. Louis, 182 Mo. 284, 81 S. W. 395 (1904). Under art. XII, sec. 17, of the Missouri Constitution and under section 4692 (repealed, L. 1939) a company owning, operating, or managing a railroad in Missouri is prohibited from leasing, purchasing, or exercising any control over any other railroad in the state that is substantially parallel to or a competitor of such railroad. And where the statute speaks of competing roads, it refers to substantial competition. Competition amounting to 1 percent of the traffic of one road is not sufficiently substantial so as to come within the purview of the Statute. Kimball et al. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Co. et al., 46 Fed. 888 (1891). There is dictum in St. Louis, Kennett & Southern Railroad Co. et al. v. Wear, Judge, 135 Mo. 230, 36 S. W. 357 (1896), to the effect that art. XII, sec. 17, of the State Constitution and sections 4692 and 4693 prevent the president of a railroad company from being named as receiver for a competing railroad. Where the receiver of A Railroad did not desire to assume a contract by A with B because of a contract with C, the court would not |