1. Adams, Edward F., The Modern Farmer in His Business Relations (San Francisco: N. J. Stone Company, 1899), 440.Google Scholar For background on the economic changes of the period and the social tensions that accompanied industrialization, see Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F. D. R. (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), 23–130;Google ScholarHawley, Ellis W., The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 3–10;Google ScholarGarraty, James A., The New Commonwealth, 1877-1890 (New York: Harper and Row, 1968);Google Scholar and Paul, Arnold, Conservative Crisis and the Rule of Law: Attitudes of Bar and Bench, 1887-1895 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1976).Google Scholar The essays collected in Adams, Herbert B., ed., History of Cooperation in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1888)Google Scholar, show the spread of cooperative practices into different sectors of the economy, particularly labor and agriculture.

2. Spence, W. Y., “Success after Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 5 (December, 1917): 6–7.Google Scholar

3. California historians have generally recognized that the state's agricultural producers put cooperation to work in spectacular ways, although most of the attention has centered on the California Fruit Growers’ Exchange (Sunkist) because of the importance of the citrus industry in settling and developing southern California. For good contemporary accounts, see Steen, Herman, Cooperative Marketing: The Golden Rule in Agriculture (New York: Doubleday, Page, 1923)Google Scholar; Wickson, Edward J., Rural California (San Francisco: Rural State and Province Series, 1922);Google ScholarCoulter, John Lee, Cooperation among Farmers (New York: Sturgis and Walton Co., 1911);Google ScholarLloyd, John W., Cooperative and Other Methods of Marketing California Horticultural Products, University of Illinois Studies in Social Science, 8, no. 1 (1919);Google Scholar and MacCurdy, Rahno Mabel, The History of the California Fruit Growers’ Exchange (Los Angeles: George Rice and Sons, 1925).Google Scholar For more recent assessments, see Erdman, Henry E., “The Development and Significance of California Cooperatives, 1900-1915,” Agricultural History 32 (1958): 179–84;Google Scholar and Starr, Kevin, Inventing the Dream: California through the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 161–62.Google Scholar A good synthetic history of the state and its agriculture remains to be written; the best so far is Bean, Walton and Rawls, James J., California: An Interpretive History, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983).Google Scholar

4. Testimony of Chaddock, E. L., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation under Section 6(e) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, Transcript of Hearings, (typescript), 1 (November 22, 1919), 155,Google Scholar Franklin P. Nutting Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

5. Rehart, Schyler and Patterson, William K., M. Theo Kearney: Prince of Fresno. A Biography of Martin Theodore Kearney (Fresno: The Fresno City and County Historical Society, 1988), 41–42;Google ScholarHoward, Fred K., History of the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers (Fresno: privately published, 1922), 19–22.Google Scholar Kearney's epitaph for himself indicates both his high opinion of himself and his disdain for those whom he sought to educate: “Warning–here lies the body of M. Theo Kearney, a visionary who thought he could teach the average farmer, and particularly raisin growers, some of the rudiments of sound business management. For eight years he worked strenuously at the task, and at the end of that time he was no further ahead than at the beginning. The effort killed him.” Rehart and Patterson, M. Theo Kearney, 42.

6. Wickson, Rural California, 302; Steen, Herman, “Story of the California Raisin ‘Trust’,” Hoard's Dairyman 60 (October 15, 1920): 532;Google Scholar on the lawsuit, see Bill of Complaint and Petition, U.S. v. California Associated Raisin Company, Case No. B-67 in equity, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Northern Division, Box 77, Equity Case Files, 1913-1938, Records of the U.S. District Courts, Record Group 21, National Archives, Pacific Sierra Regional Archives, San Bruno, California.

7. Thorelli, Hans B., The Federal Antitrust Policy: Origination of an American Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955);Google ScholarLetwin, William, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (New York: Random House, 1965).Google Scholar

8. Nourse, Edwin G., The Legal Status of Agricultural Co-operation (New York: Macmillan, 1928)Google Scholar, provides a remarkably synthetic legal history of the movement. A more recent work, more encyclopedic than analytical, is Knapp, Joseph G., The Rise of American Cooperative Enterprise, 1620-1900 (Danville, III.: Interstate Printing and Publishing, 1969)Google Scholar. A typical economic survey of cooperatives is Cobia, David, ed., Cooperatives in Agriculture (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1989)Google Scholar; the law-and-economics approach is supplied by Mueller, Willard F., Helmberger, Peter G., and Paterson, Thomas W., The Sunkist Case: A Study in Legal-Economic Analysis (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1987).Google Scholar

9. Law review contributors during the 1920s called attention to the transformations in state and federal antitrust policy precipitated by the cooperative movement. None, however, was interested in the distinctive social context of the legal change they described. Arndt, Stanley M., “The Law of California Co-operative Marketing Associations,” California Law Review 8 (1920): 281–94;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBallentine, Henry W., “Co-operative Marketing Associations,” Minnesota Law Review 8 (1923): 1–27;Google ScholarGoldberg, Charles L., “Co-operative Marketing and Restraint of Trade,” Marquette Law Review 12 (1928): 270–92;Google ScholarMeyer, Theodore R., “The Law of Cooperative Marketing,” California Law Review 15 (1927): 85–112;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMiller, John D., “Farmers’ Co-operative Associations as Legal Combinations,” Cornell Law Quarterly 7 (1922): 293–309;Google ScholarSapiro, Aaron, “The Law of Cooperative Marketing Associations,” Kentucky Law Journal 15 (1926): 1–21;Google ScholarTobriner, Mathew, “The Constitutionality of Cooperative Marketing Statutes,” California Law Review 17 (1928): 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. On the history of cooperation in Europe, see Mears, Eliot G. and Tobriner, Mathew O., Principles and Practices of Cooperative Marketing (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1926), 366–91;Google Scholar Nourse, Legal Status of Agricultural Co-operation, 25-35; Steen, Co-operative Marketing, 1-4; and Filley, H. Clyde, Cooperation in Agriculture (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1929), 17–18.Google Scholar

11. Barton, David G., “Principles,” inCobia, ed., Cooperatives in Agriculture, 24-32, esp. 27; Hanna, John, The Law of Cooperative Marketing Associations (New York: Ronald Press, 1931), 3–4;Google Scholar Knapp, Rise of American Cooperative Enterprise, 8-15.

12. On the separation between capital and management in regular corporations, see Berle, Adolf A. Jr, and Means, Gardner C., The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York: Macmillan, 1933), 89;Google ScholarChandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), 377–483.Google Scholar

13. Nourse, Edwin G., “The Economic Philosophy of Cooperation,” American Economic Review 12, no. 4 (December, 1922), 579.Google Scholar

14. McKay, Andrew W., Federal Research and Educational Work for Farmer Cooperatives, 1913-1953, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmer Cooperative Service, Re-port #40 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1959): 3;Google ScholarDavis, Lance E., et al., American Economic Growth: An Economist's History of the U.S. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972), 369–419.Google Scholar Complaints about marketing, of course, helped trigger the agrarian protest movements of the late nineteenth century. For works treating agricultural development generally during this period, see Benedict, Murray, Farm Policies in the U.S., 1790-1900 (New York: Twentieth-Century Fund, 1953);Google ScholarShannon, Fred A., The Farmer's Last Frontier: Agriculture, 1860-1897 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1945);Google ScholarFite, Gilbert, The Farmer's Frontier, 1865-1900 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966)Google Scholar; Gates, Paul W., History of Public Land Law, Report to the Public Lands Commission (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1968;Google Scholar reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1978); Shannon, Farmer's Last Frontier, and works cited infra, n. 15.

15. For both the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry and the Farmers’ Alliance, cooperation furnished a central plank of the agrarian reform program. The Grangers popularized the Rochdale principles of cooperation, but they adopted them too late and too selectively; most of their cooperatives failed by 1880. Farmers’ Alliance cooperatives were designed as part of a more radical critique of capitalist finance; they foundered when the Populists turned to direct political means of accomplishing their agenda. See Buck, Solon Justus, The Granger Movement: A Study of Agricultural Organization and Its Political, Economic and Social Manifestations, 1870-1880 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1913);Google Scholar on the Populists, see Hicks, John D., The Populist Revolt (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1931);Google Scholar Hofstadter, Age of Reform; and Goodwyn, Lawrence, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

16. Buck, The Granger Movement, 69-71, 244-56; Goodwyn, Democratic Promise, 110-76.

17. Ford v. Chicago Milk Shippers’ Association, 155 111. 166 (1895); People of the State of New York v. The Milk Exchange, 145 N.Y. 267 (1895).

18. The states and their dates of exemption include Michigan (1889), North Carolina (1889), Mississippi (1890), Louisiana (1890), Wisconsin (1893), Texas (1895), Illinois (1893), Montana (1895), Georgia (1896), Indiana (1897), and Tennessee (1897). U.S. Industrial Commission, Reports, Vol. II: Trusts and Industrial Combinations (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), 127–29, 192-96, 141-42, 118-20, 254-56, 230-35, 87-89, 162-63, 79-80, 95-96, 226-27;Google Scholar Goldberg, “Co-operative Marketing and Restraint of Trade,” 270, 273-74; Nourse, Legal Status of Agricultural Co-operation, 216-29, 241-46; Thorelli, Federal Antitrust Policy, 174, 176, 190, 193, 232.

19. There were a few exceptions, although they came much later than the leading cases discussed here and were accompanied by the widespread adoption of separate cooperative incorporation statutes for cooperatives. See, e.g., Owen County Burley Tobacco Society v. Brumback, 128 Ky. 137 (1908); Burley Tobacco Society v. Gillaspy, 51 Ind. App. 583 (1912); Bullville Milk Producers’ Association v. Armstrong, 178 N.Y.S. 612 (1919); Castorland Milk and Cheese Association v. Shantz, 179 N.Y.S. 131 (1919).

20. In re Grice, 79 Fed. 629 (C.C.S.D.Tex. 1897), 649.

21. Ibid., 648.

22. Ibid., 649.

23. 184 U.S. 540(1902).

24. Ibid., 560.

25. Ibid., 560, quoting Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897), 159.

26. Ibid., 563-64. Both the Grice defendant and the Connolly appellant claimed that the state statutes denied them equal protection because they were not fanners. Grice's occupation cannot be ascertained from the opinion, but the opinion makes it clear that he and his co-defendants were engaged in a partnership “in the ordinary business of life.” Ibid., 628. Connolly purchased sewer pipe and then refused to pay on the grounds that the Union Sewer Pipe Company was monopolizing interstate commerce in the pipe trade.

27. Act of March 27, 1895, Cal. Stat., ch. 183, 222.

28. Capital stock laws: 1911 Wis. Laws, ch. 368; copied by 1913 Mich. Pub. Acts, No. 398; 1913 S.D. Laws, ch. 145; 1913 Wash. Laws, ch. 19; 1913 Mass. Acts, ch. 447; 1913 N.Y. Laws, ch. 454; 1914 Va. Acts, ch. 329; 1915 Iowa Acts, ch. 218; 1915 Wyo. Sess. Laws, ch. 145, 1915 N.C. Sess. Laws, ch. 144; 1915 S.C. Acts, No. 152; 1915 Or. Laws, ch. 226; 1916 R.I. Acts, ch. 1400; 1919 Okla. Sess. Laws, ch. 147. The Nebraska law of 1911 was also a popular model. 1911 Neb. Laws, ch. 32; followed by 1913 Ind. Acts, ch. 164; 1913 Colo. Sess. Laws, ch. 62; 1915 N.D. Laws, ch. 92, 1917 Fla. Laws, ch. 7384. Non-stock laws: 1901 Nev. Stat., ch. 60; 1907 Wash. Laws, 255; 1909 Ala. Acts, Special Session, 168; 1909 Ha. Laws, ch. 5598; 1909 Or. Laws, ch. 190; 1913 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 54; 1915 N.M. Laws, ch. 64; Hanna, Law ofCo-operative Marketing Associations, 31-32, 33, n. 17, 35-38, 113; Nourse, Legal Status of Agricultural Co-operation, 45-48; Filley, Cooperation in Agriculture, 86-88.

29. Cartwright Act, 1907 Cal. Stat., ch. 530, p. 984; 1909 Cal. Stat., ch. 362, p. 593.

30. Ibid., 594.

31. Nourse, Legal Status of Agricultural Co-operation, 362; Arndt, “The Law of California Co-operative Marketing Associations,” 284-85; Meyer, “The Law of Co-operative Marketing,” 95.

32. In other states, judges held that under both common law and statutory rules cooperatives illegally restrained trade; in particular, membership contracts were construed as conspiring to create barriers to free exchange. In addition to the cases cited in note 17, see Reeves v. Decorah Farmers’ Co-operative Society, 160 Iowa 194 (1913); Ludowese v. Fanners’ Mutual Cooperative Co., 164 Iowa 197 (1914); Georgia Fruit Exchange v. Turnipseed, 9 Ala. App. 123 (1913); Burns v. Wray Farmers’ Grain Co., 65 Colo. 425 (1918); but see Castorland Milk and Cheese Co. v. Shantz and Bullville Milk Producers’ Assn. v. Armstrong, see note 19 above, upholding membership contracts against the claim that they restrained trade. These two cases indicated the direction that public policy would take during the 1920s, when new statutory schemes for co-operative organization induced courts to reverse themselves. See e.g., Tobacco Growers’ Cooperative Assn. v. Jones, 185 N.C. 265 (1923); and Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers’ Cooperative Assn., 276 U.S. 69 (1928).

33. Gov. Hiram Johnson appointed Sacramento merchant Harris Weinstock the first State Director of Markets. Weinstock's principal assistant was a young attorney, Aaron Sapiro, who spearheaded the movement to organize cooperatives in every commodity in the state. During the 1920s, Sapiro led a highly visible national campaign to export the “California model” of cooperation to the tobacco, wheat, corn, and cotton farmers. Through legislation and litigation, Sapiro persuaded legislatures and courts to revise the legal status of cooperation and permit farmers to monopolize. Many of his organizations ultimately collapsed due to the economic pressures of overproduction. Larsen, Grace H. and Erdman, Henry E., “Aaron Sapiro: Genius of Farm Cooperative Promotion,” Journal of American History 49 (1962): 242–68.Google Scholar

34. The agricultural journal Pacific Rural Press reported in 1903 the raisin growers’ confidence that they could survive any anti-trust suit lodged against them by competing packers: “Quite sensational reports are circulating about the U.S. Courts proceeding against the [California Raisin Growers’ Association] on the ground that it is a trust and should be buffeted like the beef trust of the Mississippi valley for violating the provisions of the Sherman law…. There seems to be, however, much occasion for doubt about the accuracy of the reports. The raisin people are quite sure that their contracts do not violate the Sherman law, and that the present attack is due to the importers, whose occupation is threatened by the constant advance of the California product.” “The Week,” editorial, Pacific Rural Press, 65 (March 21, 1903): 178.Google Scholar

35. Colby, Charles C., “The California Raisin Industry–A Study in Geographic Interpretation” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 14 (1924): 49–108;Google Scholar Bean and Rawls, California: An Interpretive History, 199-205; Nash, Gerald, State Government and Economic Development: A History of Administrative Policies in California, 1849-1933 (Berkeley: Institute of Intergovernmental Studies, 1964), 63–73;Google ScholarAdams, Frank, “The Historical Background of California Agriculture,” in California Agriculture ed. Hutchison, Claude B. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1946), 23–29.Google Scholar

36. Fox, Feramorz Y., “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry” (M.A. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1912), 7.Google Scholar

37. Cross, Ira B., “Cooperation in California,” American Economic Review 1 (1911): 535–44;Google Scholar Adams, The Modern Farmer in His Business Relations, 464-65; Fox, “Results of Cooperation,” 22, 25-26 (noting that assessors’ records showed a decrease of 14,000 acres in production in 1894 and 1895); Spence, W. Y., “Success after Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 6 (January, 1918): 6–7;Google Scholar“Present Prices of Agricultural Lands in California,” Pacific Rural Press 54 (July 15, 1897): 39;Google Scholar “The Raisin Limit,” ibid. (July 31, 1897): 67; “Notes and Comments,” ibid. (October 9, 1897): 227.

38. “The Situation at Fresno,” Pacific Rural Press 51 (March 28, 1896): 194 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

39. Adams, The Modern Farmer, 462.

40. Kearney did not participate in the cooperative movement prior to 1898 because he regarded the attempts to organize as unsound. Kearney to Board of Directors, California State Raisin Growers Association, June 13, 1893, M. Theo Kearney Papers, Bancroft Library.

41. “Raisin Growers’ Plans,” Pacific Rural Press 55 (May 21, 1898): 334;Google ScholarSpence, , “Success After Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 7 (February, 1918): 8;Google Scholar Fox, "Results of Cooperation,” 28-29, 32; Adams, The Modern Farmer, 465-67.

42. Kearney was elected president, along with his hand-picked slate of directors. Shareholding was limited to growers who purchased shares for five dollars in proportion to their contribution to the state's crop. The CRGA dealt with the commercial packers as the agent for its members. The packers who wanted to purchase CRGA raisins signed contracts that bound them to buy and sell raisins at CRGA prices. Spence, , “Success After Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 7 (February, 1918): 9.Google Scholar

43. “Progress with the Raisin Growers,” Pacific Rural Press 55 (May 28, 1898): 342;Google Scholar “Progress of the Raisin Pool,” ibid. 56 (August 10, 1898): 117; “The Raisin Combine Solid,” ibid. (October 8, 1898): 234; “Success of the Association,” ibid. (November 5, 1898): 303; Fred K. Howard, “History of Raisin Marketing,” typescript, s.d. [but 1922], 23-43, Cooperative In-House Archives, Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California, Kingsburg, California; Meyer, Edith Catharine, “The Development of the Raisin Industry in Fresno County, California” (M.A. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1931), 82;Google Scholar Adams, The Modern Farmer, 467-68.

44. Kearney, “Address before the State Fruit Growers’ Convention, December 14, 1899, On the Organization of the Raisin Growers for the Sale of Their Raisins,” M. Theo Kearney Papers, Fresno City and County Historical Society, Fresno, California.

45. Ibid.; Fox, “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry,” 34; Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of the California Raisin Growers’ Association, April 1, 1899, Kearney Papers, Fresno City and County Historical Society.

46. Fox, “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry,” 36.

47. The CRGA represented a threat to the economic position of the commercial packers, who “had no intention of going out of business, at least [not] without a struggle, and they had many supporters among the growers and businessmen, many of whom believed it inadvisable to attempt to eliminate the packers.” Fox, “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry,” 38.

48. Ibid., 39; Kearney, circular letter to growers, May 22, 1900, Kearney Papers, Bancroft Library; Rehart and Patterson, M. Theo Kearney, 33; Spence, , “Success After Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 8 (March, 1918): 8.Google Scholar

49. As growers deserted the cooperative following Kearney's resignation, prices dropped again. “Editorial,” Pacific Rural Press 60 (July 21, 1900): 34;Google Scholar “Raisin Growers’ Presidency,” ibid. (August 11, 1900): 94; Fox, “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry,” 40; Spence, , “Success After Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 8 (March, 1918): 8.Google Scholar

50. “The Raisin Situation,” Pacific Rural Press 62 (August 31, 1901): 140;Google Scholar Fox, “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry,” 44.

51. Payne, Will, “Cooperation–The Raisin Baron,” Saturday Evening Post 182, no. 4 (April 30, 1910): 15.Google Scholar

52. “Reorganization of Raisin Association Completed,” Fresno Morning Republican, June 5, 1901Google Scholar, Kearney Papers, Bancroft Library.

53. Grandy, Christopher J., “The Economics of Multiple Governments: New Jersey Corporate Chartermongering, 1875-1929” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1987);Google ScholarMcCurdy, Charles W., “The Knight Sugar Decision of 1895 and the Modernization of American Corporation Law, 1869-1903,” Business History Review 53 (1979): 304–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Kearney to Raisin Growers, circular letter, November 1, 1901, Kearney Papers, Bancroft Library.

55. “A New Proposition Made to Growers under the Lease,” Fresno Evening Democrat, October 28, 1901Google Scholar, Kearney Papers, Bancroft Library. Kearney hired “good corporation lawyers” to model the new CRGA after the steel trust. “Reorganization of Raisin Association Completed,” Fresno Morning Republican, June 5, 1901Google Scholar, Kearney Papers, Bancroft Library.

56. Payne, “Cooperation–The Raisin Baron,” 15.

57. Ibid.; Allison, , Gordon, , and Boot, quoted in “Fruit Marketing; the Raisin Situation,” Pacific Rural Press 62 (August 31, 1901): 140.Google Scholar

58. “Editorial,” Pacific Rural Press 62 (December 14, 1901): 370;Google Scholar “Editorial,” ibid. 63 (January 4, 1902): 2; “Editorial,” ibid. (January 11, 1902): 22; “Editorial,” ibid. (April 12, 1902): 246; Spence, , “Success after Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 8 (March, 1918): 9;Google Scholar Fox, “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry,” 45-50.

59. A packers' combination took over the unsold stock and financial obligations of the growers' association. Boot, quoted in “The Week,” Pacific Rural Press 65 (April 18, 1903): 242;Google Scholar Fox, “Cooperation in the Raisin Industry,” 51; Spence, , “Success After Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 8 (March, 1918): 12;Google Scholar Payne, “Cooperation–The Raisin Baron,” 44; Rehart and Patterson, M. Theo Kearney, 35-37, 42.

60. Rehart and Patterson, M. Theo Kearney, 37.

61. Contemporary and more recent historical assessments alike have concluded that Kearney's cooperative movement failed because the growers were simply not yet ready to accept his sophisticated ideas. Typical examples include Bragg, J. M., “History of Cooperative Marketing in Raisins in 1923” (M.A. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1930), 14Google Scholar: “[Kearney's] community was not ripe yet for understanding… advanced ideas”; and Rehart and Patterson, M. Theo Kearney, 36: “[The growers] were particularly opposed to an organization that would demand funds from them to create a grower-operated packing concern. While many growers continued to support some kind of limited company, they had little interest in any ambitious and expensive enterprise.”

62. Spence, , “Success After Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 11 (June, 1918): 7.Google Scholar On the role of local attorneys in the formation of the CARC, see Levy, Louis, History of the Cooperative Raisin Industry of California (Fresno, Calif.: privately printed, 1928), 6.Google Scholar

63. Just how many of the stockholders were growers and how many were townspeople sufficiently interested in the prosperity of the industry to purchase shares cannot be determined from extant records. In later testimony before Congress, CARC President Wylie Giffen put the figures at eighty percent growers, twenty percent nongrowers; attorney John W. Preston, representing the commercial packers, contended that the proportion was two to one, nongrowers to growers. U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Authorizing Associations of Producers of Agricultural Products, Hearing, 67th Cong., 1 sess., 2 June 1921, 8, 98.Google Scholar

64. Howard, History of the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, 7-9; California Associated Raisin Company, “Original Subscription and Voting Trust Agreement,” November 1912, reprinted in ibid., 19-22; Bragg, “History of Cooperative Marketing in Raisins to 1923,” 66; Spence, “Success After Twenty Years,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 11 (June, 1918): 7;Google ScholarWoehlke, Walter V., “Raising the Price of the Raisin: Getf[ing] Together Pays the Growers,” Country Gentleman, 79 (1914): 2039.Google Scholar

65. Levy, History of the Co-operative Raisin Industry of California, 5-6; Spence, , “The California Associated Raisin Co.: Organization of the Company” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 12 (July, 1918): 7;Google Scholar Howard, History of the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, 9; Steen, Cooperative Marketing, 23; Wickson, Edward J., “The Raisin Realization,” Pacific Rural Press 84 (November 2, 1912): 420;Google Scholar D. J. Whitney, “Sunrise for the Raisin Industry” ibid. (November 23, 1912): 492; Bragg, “History of Cooperative Marketing in the Raisin Industry,” 67.

66. Steers v. U.S., 192 F. 1 (E.D. Ky. 1911) (holding that the Sherman Act's criminal penalties applied to eight Kentucky tobacco farmers who confiscated a shipment of tobacco in interstate commerce), and Loewe v. Lawlor (Danbury Hatters’ Case), 208 U.S. 274 (1908) (holding that a labor union's secondary boycott violated the Sherman Act.)

67. Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730 (1914).

68. Act of June 23, 1913, ch. 3, 38 Stat. 53; Act of August 1, 1914, ch. 223, 38 stat. 652; Act of March 3, 1915, ch. 75, 38 Stat. 866; Act of July 1, 1916, ch. 209, 39 Stat. 312; Act of June 12, 1917, ch. 26, 40 Stat. 155; Act of July 1, 1918, ch. 113, 40 Stat. 681; Act of November 4, 1919, ch. 93, 41 Stat. 336; Act of June 1, 1922, ch. 204, 42 Stat. 613; Act of January 1, 1923, ch. 21, 42 Stat. 1080; Act of May 28, 1924, ch. 204, 43 Stat. 217; Act of June 30, 1926, ch. 364, 43 Stat. 1027; Act of April 29, 1926, ch. 195, 44 Stat. 343; Act of February 24, 1927, ch. 189, 44 Stat. 1194. There were no riders in the 1920, 1921, and 1925 appropriations bills.

69. Welch, quoted in testimony of Chaddock, E. L., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 20, 1919), 129.Google Scholar

70. “First Crop Contract,” n.d. but covering years 1913, 1914, 1915, reprinted in Howard, History of the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, 23-25; Spence, , “The California Associated Raisin Company: Organization of the Company,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 12 (July, 1918): 6–7, 14.Google Scholar

71. Testimony of Chaddock, E. L., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 20, 1919), 113–19;Google Scholar Trade Circular, Bonner Packing Company, Fresno, California, March 29, 1913, Box 560, Case No. 60-166-21, Bureau of Antitrust Investigations, Central Classified Subject Files, Records of the Department of Justice, Record Group 60, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Bragg, “History of Cooperative Marketing in the Raisin Industry,” 72, 74-75, 77; Thomas Gallagher and Robert O'Connor, assistant U.S. attorneys, to Attorney General, February 11, 1916, Box 559, RG 60; Spence, , “Early Negotiations with the Packers,” Sun-Maid Herald 4, no. 3 (October, 1918): 4–5.Google Scholar For the terms of the packers’ contract, see Agent Allen's report, September 2, 1913, Exhibit A (copy of contract with Phoenix Packing Company), September 25, 1913, Box 560 RG 60.

72. “New Design Adopted for Sun-Maid Carton,” Sun-Maid Herald 1, no. 1 (August, 1915): 5;Google Scholar “Big Advertising Campaign Started,” ibid.: 8-9; “Thousands of Dollars of Free Advertising for Raisins,” ibid.: 10, 20; F. P. Webster, Report, “In re California Associated Raisin Co., Alleged Violation of Sherman Act,” April 19, 1916, Box 560, RG 60; “Historical Data, Sun-Maid Raisin Growers,” February 12, 1946, typescript, Sun-Maid Archives; Levy, History of the Cooperative Raisin Industry of California, 7.

73. William S. Courtland, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, to A. Bruce Bielaski, Chief, Bureau of Investigation, April 8, 1913, Box 560, RG 60; see also trade circulars, Bonner Packing Company, Fresno, March 25, 1913, March 29, 1913, Box 560, RG 60; W L. Sheill to Rep. E. R. Bathrick, February 19, 1914, File 1, Box 559, RG 60; George W. Mueller, Mueller, Platt & Wheeland Co., to Attorney General James McReynolds, November 8, 1913, File 1, Box 559, RG 60; The Daniels, Cornell Co. to Department of Justice, July 30, 1913, File 1, Box 559, RG 60.

74. Thomas Gallagher and Robert O'Connor to Attorney General, February 11, 1916, File 1, Box 559, RG 60; Schoonover to Carroll Todd, January 24, 1916, File 1, Box 559, RG 60.

75. Forrester, R. B., Report upon Large Scale Co-operative Marketing in the United States (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1925), 141;Google ScholarSpence, , “Association Established on Firm Foundation,” Sun-Maid Herald 4, no. 5 (December, 1918): 6;Google Scholar Bragg, “History of Cooperative Marketing in the Raisin Industry,” 82, 84-85. On the problems posed to cooperatives by free-riders, see Steen, Cooperative Marketing, 318-40.

76. Board of Directors, California Associated Raisin Company, “Shall We Go On?” Sun-Maid Herald 1, no. 6 (January, 1916): 2–3.Google Scholar

77. Nutting, Franklin P., “Interview re Sun-Maid Litigation,” transcript of interview (1955)Google Scholar, Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, 38-39; F. P. Webster, Special Agent, Report to the Attorney General, April 22, 1916, Box 560, RG 60.

78. “Giffen's Reply to Rowley,” Sun-Maid Herald 1, no. 8 (March, 1916): 3–4;Google Scholar “Night-Riding,” ibid., no. 9 (April, 1916): 2; California Citrograph, March, 1916, 9-10.

79. After the campaign ended, Madison instructed the packers not to sell to anyone except “at such prices and upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed from time to time by the Associated Raisin Company” (emphasis in original). F. P. Webster, Report, “In re California Association Raisin Co.,” April 19, 1916, Box 560, RG 60; see also Webster reports dated April 22, April 24, April 25, April 28, and May 13, 1916, Box 560, RG 60.

80. Schoonover to Attorney General, April 4, 1917, File 1, Box 559, RG 60.

81. Lincoln Clark to Carroll Todd, June 6, 1917, File 1, Box 559, RG 60.

82. 221 U.S. 1 (1911) and 221 U.S. 106 (1911), establishing that the Sherman Act banned only those restraints upon trade that were unreasonable in scope. Todd to Schoonover, July 27, 1917, File 1, Box 559, RG 60.

83. William B. Colver, Chair, FTC, “Memorandum to the Commission in the Matter of the Raisin Situation,” August 2, 1918, File 3, Box 559, RG 60; on the uncertainties of funding for the Antitrust Division during the 1910s, see Cohen, Stanley, A. Mitchell Palmer: Politician (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963);Google Scholar and Giglio, James N., H. M. Daugherty and the Politics of Expediency (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1978), 122–24.Google Scholar

84. Testimony of Chaddock, E. L., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 22, 1919), 289.Google Scholar

85. Howard, History of Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, 27-28; In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 25, 1919), 390–93; Spence, , “The California Associated Raisin Co.,” Sun-Maid Herald 5, no. 3 (October, 1919): 8.Google Scholar Whether the California courts would enforce the liquidated damages clause was by no means certain; in the mid-1920s, state appeals courts upheld the legality of the clause but refused to permit the reorganized Sun-Maid Raisin Growers to collect from growers who had signed contracts with the previous organization, the CARC. Saker, Victoria A., “Benevolent Monopoly: The Legal Transformation of Agricultural Cooperation, 1890-1945,” (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1990), 364–66.Google Scholar

86. Giffen, , “The Campaign Is On,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 5 (December, 1917): 14.Google Scholar

87. Affidavit of Franklin P. Nutting, American Seedless Raisin Company, U.S. v. California Associated Raisin Company, September 1920, Carton 2, Nutting Papers.

88. Testimony of Chaddock, E. L., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 20, 1919), 137.Google Scholar

89. Testimony of Bonner, Charles G., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 2 (November 28, 1919), 946.Google Scholar

90. Giffen, , “The Final Results,” Sun-Maid Herald 3, no. 8 (March, 1918): 1.Google Scholar

91. Testimony of McCandless, George H., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 24, 1919), 503–5;Google Scholar testimony of Chaddock, E. L., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 20, 1919), 126;Google Scholar U.S. Senate, Hearings Authorizing Association of Producers of Agricultural Products, 110-11 (testimony of Wylie M. Giffen). Attorneys for the packers later alleged that the quartercent fund was developed to protect the CARC against possible losses should market prices dip below the growers’ contractually guaranteed price. The fund accumulated so much money that by 1919 the CARC had a surplus of $323,000 even after paying stock dividends. Statement of Preston, John W., In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 20, 1919), 82.Google Scholar

92. Howard, History of the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, 13.

93. Seymour, Fred A., “Concerning 1918 Crop Raisin Prices,” Sun-Maid Herald 4, no. 1 (August, 1918): 1;Google Scholar H. G. Johnson, “New Raisin Prices Assure Fair Profit,” ibid.: 2; Giffen, “The Price of 1919 Raisins,” ibid. 4, no. 12 (July, 1919): 1-2.

94. “Raisin Trust May Have Competition,” New York Journal of Commerce and Commercial Journal, August 20, 1920Google Scholar; McCann, Alfred W., “What Is Sauce for the Goose Isn't for Gander,” The Guide and Commercial Advertiser, February 13, 1920Google Scholar; various letters from jobbers, wholesalers, and retailers to the Department of Justice, August and September, 1919, Fred R. Drake to A. Mitchell Palmer, August 23, 1919, A. Mitchell Palmer to William B. Colver, September 30, 1919, all in File 3, Box 559, RG 60.

95. Preston, John W., Opening Statement, In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 20, 1919), 11–12.Google Scholar As local counsel in Washington the packers hired Joseph E. Davies, former chief of the U.S. Bureau of Corporations. The New York firm of Breed, Abbott, and Morgan represented the National Wholesale Grocers’ Association, which appeared at the hearings and eventually filed a brief in the federal lawsuit.

96. Ibid. (November 24, 1919), 327-28.

97. Sutherland, W. A., opening statement, In re California Associated Raisin Company, Investigation, 1 (November 24, 1919), 331;Google Scholaribid., (November 25, 1919), 723; Sutherland to Mitchell, Henry S., Assistant Attorney General, September 24, 1919, File 3, Box 559, RG 60.Google Scholar

98. Report of the Federal Trade Commission to the Attorney General, June 8, 1920, 19-20, 23-24, File 3, Box 559, RG 60.

99. Sutherland to Henry S. Mitchell, July 6, 1920; Mitchell to Sutherland, July 7, 1920; Sutherland to Mitchell, July 9, 1920; Giffen to Mitchell, July 16, 1920; Giffen to Mitchell, July 26, 1920, all in File 3, Box 559, RG 60.

100. Howard, History of the Sun-Maid Raisin Growers, 13-14.

101. Bill of Complaint and Petition, U.S. v. California Associated Raisin Company, et al., Case No. B-67 in equity, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Northern Division, File 3, Box 559, RG 60; case file, U.S. v. CARC, B-67, Folder 2, Box 77, RG 21; Palmer to O'Connor, September 5, 1920, O'Connor to Palmer, September 7, 1920, Palmer to O'Connor, September 8, 1920, all in File 3, Box 559, RG 60.

102. 195 U.S. 1 (1896).

103. Plaintiff's Points and Authorities, Defendant's Reply Points and Authorities, October 25, 1920, U.S. v. CARC, Folder 2, Box 77, RG 21.

104. O'Connor, U.S. Attorney, to Attorney General, November 25, 1920, Box 559, RG 60.

105. The specific practices included obtaining crop contracts through coercion, making selling contracts where prices were made contingent on future market conditions; decreasing competition by purchasing packing plants and packing businesses of competitor firms; exclusive dealing or discriminating in any way among purchasers of raisins; making the packers into selling agents of the Association; making any purchase of raisins to fix prices; or restricting production in any way. Consent Decree, U.S. v. CARC, January 18, 1922, Folder 1, Box 76, RG 21.

106. U.S. Senate, Hearings Authorizing Association of Producers of Agricultural Products, 38 (testimony of Carl E. Lindsay, attorney for the CARC). A good account of the milk producers’ difficulties with the Justice Department from 1917 to 1922 and their role in the legislative history of Capper-Volstead is Guth, James L., “Farmer Monopolies, Cooperative, and the Intent of Congress: Origins of the Capper-Volstead Act,” Agricultural History 56, no. 1 (January, 1982): 67–82.Google Scholar

107. Capper-Volstead Act, Act of February 18, 1922, 42 Stat. 388.

108. Steen, Herman, “Story of the California Raisin ‘Trust’,” Hoard's Dairyman, 60 (October 15, 1920): 532.Google Scholar