The Leon reporter., 1902-06-05
TEMPORARY ORDER AGAINST
PACKERS.

sIHlFVAAR1 ORDER AGAINS
PACKERS.
Tuesdays proceedings in the matter
OF the packers combine injunction were
speedily concluded because the defend
ants saw fit not to resist the issuance
OF an order for temporary Injunction.
AS there was no resistance, Judge
Grosscup did not see how he could re-
fuse to issue the order and he issued ir
at once. 1t is interesting to note, how
ever, that he did not issue it in the
form in which it had been drafted for
him by the law officers of the United
States.
This is the more interesting because,
after the publication OF the bill for an
injunction drafted by the same officers
with much painstaking and consultation,
it was found to be so defective that it
would have been thrown out of court
on technlcalities had it not been cor
rected before it was filed.
In view of that fact it is peculiarly
interesting to see Judge Grosscup
quoted as saying that the order submit
ted to him by the government law
officers laid SO much emphasis upon the
details and so little upon the general
fact which was the gist of the whole pro.
ceedings that there was possibility for
guilty party to escape.
These faults, first in the bill and then
in the order prepared by the govern
ment lawyers,ar suggestive ofintention
to allow the government case to tail
through technical errors. We can hard.
ly suppose the lawyers representing the
government to be so incapable as to
draft through inadvertence an order up
on which the court could comment in
such terms and which the Judge himself
found no difficulty in redrafting in
half an hour!
Another point of interest appears in
the fact that the counsel for the packers
did not think it worth while to resist
the motion for temporary injunction,
but in effect admitted the allegations of
the bill in general way as to matters
of fact and intimated that their defense
would be that the acts complained of
were not violations of the antitrust law.
Without going into the merits of this
defense it may be remarked that the
altitude of nonresistance assumed by
the packers is entirely compatible with
a purpose to ''get busy" reorganizing
while the government is busy enjoining.
The sole legal representative of the
packers who was present seemed to be
quite at his ease and not at all con-
cerned as to the outcome if the restrain.
ing order should be issued.
We can understand this easy attitude
if the attorneys for the combine see a
way to carry on business in the same
old style under new organization with
new names, which can be reached by in
junction only at the end of other pro-
longed proceedings of the same kind,
when another lightning change can be
executed.
1t is further interesting to note that
we are told in connection with Tues
days proceedings that the federal
authorities stand ready to prove that
the packers shave habitually committed
in the past" the illegal acts which the
Iunuornn1nrt ivi,y TO
strain them from committing in the
future.
If they are ready to prove that why
do they not proceed to secure the con
viction and punishment OF the packer:
for their repeated and habitual viola
tions of the law in the past instead O.
asking court to command them not tc
do it again?
This again looks like kindness to tn,
"guilty parties" who according tt
Judge Grosscupp might haye escaped
lander the order so kindly drawn for hin
by the government lawyers.
4 If the government lawyers were pre-
pared to prove haktual violations O
the law in the past they had no excus
for resorting to the writ Of injunction
Was the judge limiting at that when b,
remarked upon the fact that there wa
no resistance to the issuance of tn
temporary order?
| 1t looks as though the packers chos
not to make that point, preferring in
function to criminal prosecution. Blu
is the government to consult the prefer
ences of violators of the law?
1t is the generally accepted theory ii
civilized countries that in such matter
government should consult the inter
ests of the public and not the prefer
ences of lawbreakers.-C Chicago Chroni
| A.