International Harvester Co. of America v. Missouri

Citations

• 234 U.S. 199
• 34 S. Ct. 859
• 58 L. Ed. 1276
• 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1141

Syllabus

<p>Although the state appellate court may not have referred to the constitutional questions in its opinion, this court cannot regard such silence as a condemnation of the time at, 'or manner in which, those questions were raised; and, if the record shows that they were raised in that court, this court has jurisdiction.</p> <p>The Fourteenth Amendment does not preclude the State from adopting a policy against all combinations of competing corporations and enforcing it even against combinations which have been induced by good intentions and from which benefit and not injury may have resulted.</p> <p>The power of classification which may be exerted in the legislation of States has a very broad range; and a classification is not invalid under the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment because of simple inequality.</p> <p>A state statute prohibiting combination is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection of the law because it embraces vendors of commodities and not vendors of labor and services. There is a reasonable basis for such a classification; and so held as to the Missouri anti-trust Laws of 1899 and 1909.</p> <p>Questions of policy are for the legislature and not for this court to determine.</p> <p>As classification must be accommodated to the problems of legislation; it may depend upon degree of evil so long as it is not unreasonable or arbitrary.</p>