The state court held that the measure violated the State Constitution in so far as it sanctioned denial of the right to engage in the ice business. Cap.

—it was held that this type of provision violated the anti-monopoly provisions of the Arkansas Constitution. 37.

Granting a necessary monopoly is not contingent on the existence of a contract with the government, but only that the regulation be a valid exercise of the state's police powers.

In so doing, the appellate panel followed a recent opinion by the Arkansas Supreme Court, an opinion which had invalidated the entry licensing provisions of an Arkansas statute regulating the ice business

It reasons thus: whether a business may be so controlled by legislative enactment is a matter to be determined by the economic and social conditions surrounding that 849 F.(2d) 913.'52 F.(2d) 349 (CCA 10th 1931). 5 Cap F.

The constitution of Arkansas (Art. 11, sec. 19) declares:'Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of the republic, and shall not be allowed.***'This provision is a restraint upon the State Legislature. Cap.

[BOOK] State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (fourth): Alabama through Iowa