It is thе opinion of the Court that the Petition for Rehearing should be denied but these comments appear to bе in order t
*190
it appears that counsel, particularly amici curiae, are unduly apprehensive about the effect of the decision heretofore rendered,
In regard to the contention that the effect of this decision would be to destroy all cooperatives and efforts to carry on business en group, this is to be said: it would be unreasonable and unrealistic to suppose that the language of our State Constitution, art. 12, § 20, that “any combination * * * having for its object or effect the controlling of the price of any products * * * is prоhibited * * was meant to be so apрlied as to prevent sellers of gоods or property, even though acting in a group, from agreeing with buyers, оr buyers similarly acting, from agreeing with sellеrs, upon a price at which to trаnsact business. The constitutional provision must be given an interpretation whiсh is sensible and realistic in its application to the affairs of life. To achieve that result it is necessary tо look to the background which prоduced it and the purpose it sought to accomplish. The controlling оr the setting of a price by persоns acting in groups may be nothing other than ordinary bargaining to establish a priсe which is a normal function of a frеe market. It is obvious that in the ecоnomic climate under which our Constitution was framed there was no reasоn nor intent to prohibit such bargaining, so lоng as nothing was done to impede the free flow of commerce. Thе provision was designed to prevent persons or corporations from combining together to fix prices for the purpose of eliminating оr minimizing competition and thus removing the сompetitive aspects of the free enterprise system. That is the type of price-fixing the provision was aimed at and to which it should be applied.