prosperity, thirteen.  Still, we find no new principle, except, indeed, the somewhat startling statement in Kansas that it is unlawful to handle goods made or controlled by monopolies.  The Illinois statute of that year permitted combinations as to articles whose chief cost is wages when the object or effect is to maintain or increase wages, a qualification which led to the whole law’s being declared unconstitutional.  In Tennessee there is a special statute penalizing combinations to raise the price of coal, a statute with good old precedents in early English legislation.  By this time most of the States had adopted anti-trust statutes.  In 1898 we find only one law, that of Ohio, giving the same five-fold definition of the trust that we found above in Alabama, but it adds the somewhat startling statement that “the character of the combination may be established by proof of its general reputation as such,” and again it is made criminal to own trust certificates, with double damages in all cases to persons injured.  A constitutional lawyer might well doubt whether a conviction under the last half of this statute would be sustained.  In 1899 eleven of the remaining States adopted anti-trust laws.  In 1900 there is a new statute in Mississippi prohibiting, among other things, the pooling of bids for public work, this again being a mere statement of the common law, although a law which has possibly grown uncommon by being generally forgotten.

In 1901 there are four statutes, that of Minnesota also including a prohibition of boycotts, and the first piece of legislation upon the subject in the old Commonwealth of Massachusetts—­an ordinary statute against exclusive dealing; that is to say, the making it a condition of the sale of goods that the purchaser shall not sell or deal in the goods of any other person.  In 1902 both the Georgia and Texas laws were declared unconstitutional because they exempted agricultural pursuits.  South Carolina has a statute actually prohibiting any sale at less than the cost of manufacture, doubtless also unconstitutional.  In Ohio corporations are forbidden to own stock in competing companies.  The Illinois anti-trust act was declared unconstitutional in 1903, while Texas amended its statute to meet the constitutional objection, and followed South Carolina in prohibiting the sale of goods at less than cost.

In 1904 there is no anti-trust legislation.  In 1905 the South Carolina law is held unconstitutional, and in 1906, that of Montana.  In 1907, however, under the Roosevelt administration, there was a decided revival of interest, seventeen States adopting new statutes or amendments, but still I can find no new principles.  Kansas copies the Massachusetts statute, and Massachusetts extends it to the sale or lease of machinery or tools.  Minnesota and North Carolina have interesting statutes prohibiting discrimination between localities in the sale of any commodity.  Most of the States by this time have statutes compelling