505, 507-510, 50-55, 155, 156, 170, 591, 595, 598, coscoscoscoscoscoscos 239... 293,418 Page District of Columbia Code.. 153, Jones Act...... 154 Lever Act Employers Liability Act.... 22, Merchant Marine Expediting Act... Page 412, 413 342, 454 Act...... 324, 434, 616, 617 694 National Prohibition Act... 196200, 263, 520, 560 Oklahoma Enabling Act..... 549 Panama Canal Act..... 32,35 Sherman Act.. 149-152, 166, 168-173, 620, 623, 626, 627,628, 630. Harrison Narcotic Act.. 292-294 Home Port Act.... ...617 Interstate Commerce Act. 32-36, 42, 50-55, 271, 520, 628, 694 Trading with the Enemy Act. 399 Transportation Act ..... 32-36, 572, 576 611 Gen. Laws, c. 136, § 2996. 632 1919 Comp. Stats. Const., Art. XII, § 6.... 390 § 3019... Kansas. 190 Rev. Code, § 147... 551 1921 Crawf. & Moses Dig. Kentucky. §§ 1152, 1171, 1174, 3040.. 3042.. §§ 3045, 3046, 5631.. 640 1920 Laws, Sp. Sess., c. 37 (Syndicalism Act). 381 §§ 1,3..... Stats., §§ 4077-4081.... 78 637, 640 639, 640 639 382 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1926. FAIRMONT CREAMERY COMPANY v. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. No. 725. Argued February 23, 1927.-Decided April 11, 1927. 1. A state law (G. S. Minn., § 3907) pu ishing anyone engaged in the business of buying milk, cream, or butter fat for manufacture or sale, who discriminates between different localities of the State by buying such commodities in one locality at a higher price than he pays for the same commodity in another locality, allowance being made for any difference in actual cost of transportation from locality of purchase to that of manufacture or sale-infringes the liberty of contract guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 8. 2. Such a sweeping inhibition can not be sustained as a means of preventing some buyers from attempts to destroy competition or secure a monopoly in the business by paying excessive prices. P. 9. 3. It is the duty of the Court to inquire into the real effect of any statute duly challenged because of interference with freedom of contract, and to declare it invalid when it has no substantial relation to any evil which the State has power to suppress but is a clear infringement of private rights. P. 11. 168 Minn. 381, reversed. ERROR to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota sustaining a conviction of the Creamery Company of "unfair discrimination" in purchasing butter fat for 1 Argument for Defendant in Error. 274 U.S. manufacture and sale. See also, 162 Minn. 146, and 168 Minn. 378. Mr. Leonard A. Flansburg, with whom Messrs. E. J. Hainer, George A. Lee, and M. S. Hartman were on the brief, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles E. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General of Minnesota, with whom Mr. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, was on the brief, for defendant in error. The federal Constitution does not guarantee to the individual absolute freedom of contract. Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373; Schmidinger v. Chicago, 226 U. S. 578; Chicago Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549; Williams v. Evans, 139 Minn. 32. Statutes making it an offense to discriminate in prices between different localities, when "intent" or "purpose purpose" to create a monopoly or to destroy competition is made an ingredient thereof, have been uniformly sustained. Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157; State v. Drayton, 82 Neb. 254; State v. Bridgeman, etc. Co., 117 Minn. 186; State v. Standard Oil Co., 111 Minn. 85; State v. Fairmont Creamery, 153 Ia. 702; State v. Rocky Mountain Elev. Co., 52 Mont. 487. Such a statute was enacted in Minnesota in 1909 (c. 468, Ls. 1909), and remained in force until the enactment of c. 120, Ls. 1923, here involved. Its validity was sustained in State v. Bridgeman, etc., Co., supra. In sustaining it the court found existing evils justifying this exercise of police power. In 1923 the legislature amended the law by striking therefrom the ingredient of intent or motive, thus making it an offense to discriminate in prices between localities, except as affected by the cost of transportation, whether done for the purpose of creating a monopoly or destroying competition or not (chapter 120). It was designed to meet and correct the same evils as the old statute. It must be assumed that in the judg |