1. A boycott of one by others of the dealers or market agencies
on a livestock exchange may be an unfair practice within the
meaning of the Packers & Stockyards Act. P.
279 U. S.
436.
2. Though part of the dealings of a duly registered cooperative
market agency may have been
ultra vires, the maintenance
of a general boycott against it on this account by other
associations is not justified, and, under the Packers and
Stockyards Act, the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to order
the discontinuance of the discriminatory practice, to the extent,
at least, that it applied to the legitimate business of the
complainant. P.
279 U. S.
437.
3. A cooperative association organized under the state laws and
found by the Secretary of Agriculture to be duly registered as a
market agency under the Packers & Stockyards Act is within
the
Page 279 U. S. 436
protection of that Act notwithstanding that its powers are
limited to the handling of the livestock of it members. P.
279 U. S. 438.
28 F.2d 63 reversed.
Appeal by the United States from a decree of a district court of
three judges which granted an injunction restraining the
enforcement of an order of the Secretary of Agriculture requiring
the discontinuance by respondents of a boycott of the Producers
Commission Association at the Oklahoma National Stockyards.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a proceeding under the Packers & Stockyards Act,
1921, Act of August 15, 1921, c. 64, § 316, 42 Stat. 159, 168.
U.S.Code, title 7, § 217. The American Livestock Association
and others seek an injunction against the carrying out of an order
of the Secretary of Agriculture requiring them to discontinue a
boycott by which they refused dealings with the Producers
Commission Association at the Oklahoma National Stock Yards. A
district Court of three judges granted the injunction. 28 F.2d 63.
The United States appealed.
The secretary found the existence of the boycott, the persistent
refusal to buy or sell livestock from or to the Producers
Commission Association, and that the American Livestock Association
and its fellow conspirators thereby restrained commerce and
discriminated unfairly against the Producers Commission
Association, contrary
Page 279 U. S. 437
to the statute. The appellees urge that there is nothing to
prevent their dealing or refusing to deal with whom they choose.
But we think that it does not need argument to show that a boycott
of a dealer in a stockyard may be an unfair practice under the Act
as it is found to have been in this case.
Eastern states Retail
Lumber Dealers' Association v. United States, 234 U.
S. 600. We pass at once to the only real question in
debate.
The Producers Commission Association is a cooperative
association for mutual help under the laws of Oklahoma, and is
forbidden to "handle the agricultural or horticultural product of
any nonmember except for storage." It is agreed that
"the record contains no evidence as to whether the livestock
which the Producers Commission Association bought or sold or
attempted to buy or sell upon the Oklahoma City Stockyards was or
was not the livestock of its members."
It is said, so far as appears, all the sales were
ultra
vires, and that the appellees should not be enjoined from
refusing to cooperate in an illegal act. But, apart from the
presumption that the corporation was acting only within its powers
and from the burden resting on the doer of a
prima facie
illegal act, the boycott, to justify it, we agree with the
government that it would be absurd to suppose that a cooperative
society organized for the special purpose of aiding its members
should confine its business to the illegal sale of the products of
nonmembers. If not all, we must assume that some, at least, of its
business was legitimate, and that, to some extent, it might sell
livestock that its members produced. But the boycott was general,
intended it would seem to drive the Producers Commission
Association out of business. That association was a competitor of
the appellees, and the suggestion that it was acting
ultra
vires sounds like an afterthought, and cannot be supposed to
have been the motive for the act. It is said that motive does not
matter, but motive may be very material when
Page 279 U. S. 438
it is sought to justify what, until justified, is a wrong. But
whatever the motive, nothing is shown or suggested by the evidence
to justify the general boycott that the Secretary's order forbade.
The Secretary's order should be enforced, but without prejudice to
the right of the appellees to refuse to deal with the Producers
Commission Association in matters beyond its power.
A suggestion was made that the last named association was not
within the protection of the Act of Congress. We see nothing in the
limitation of its powers to prevent it, the statute seems to
recognize it, § 306(f), and the corporation was found by the
Secretary to be a market agency duly registered as such.
Decree reversed.
