The St. Louis Republic., 1902-06-29
Supreme Court Appoints Commits
siOner to Collect Proof That
Trust Exists.
REPORT AT OCTOBER TERM.
Attorney General Crow Expected
Action to Be Taken on His In
formation, Which the Judges
Thought Not Sufficient.
REPUBLIC SPECIAL.

REPUBLIC SPECIAL.
Jefferson City, Mo-. June 2.-The beef
packing companies scored a point to-day
In the Missouri Supreme Court in the suit
| instituted against them by Attorney Gem
eral Crow, charging the companies with
combining TO maintain prices. in violation
of the Missouri antitrust law.
The decision of the court is of mantle st
stitutionality of the Missouri antitrust
law. The court reversed itself on the pre-
vious decision made several years ago in
the famous insurance cases by a majority
of one.
The question al point was the ousting of
the beef packing companies on information
furnished by the Attorney General, tending
to prove that the packers We're in a COM
bine. in which the court was divided, two
TO four.
The court sustained the motion filed by
the Attorney General to strike out the re-
turn OF the packers in all instances except
as to the matter of fact In which the court
held that 1t had not yet been shown that
a trust existed, and for the purpose of de-
termining that matter appointed Mr.. /. II.
Kinealy of Kansas City as Commissioner
to take testimony and report at the Oc-
tober term
Attorney General Crow filed a motion
asking that the testimony be taken before
a Circuit Judge and heard by a jury. which
was overruled. Ten days are given each
side to file briefs after the report of the
Commissioner is made.
Attorney General Crow Disappointed.
Attorney General Crow does not attempt
to conceal the fact that he is greatly dis
appointed in the turn of affairs in the beef
trust matter. The pleadings up to the point
reached had been exactly similar to those
in the insurance cases, in which the court
had issued writ of custer and the States
Attorney was confident to-day that the out
come would be favorable to the States con-
tention, and was much surprised at the re-
suit.
Attorney General Crow was asked what
was the practical effect of the rulings on
the motion to-day on the status of the beef
trust cases in the Supreme Court in banc
He said:
THE pleadings at the time I filed the
motion to strike out the answer and for
Judgment were in tie same conditions as
the pleadings in the prosecution against the
fire insurance trust, when the Supreme
Court rendered judgment against five of the
insurance companies and ousted them from
doing business and fined them 5000 apiece,
although no evidence had been introduced
to prove these five companies guilty.
'In the insurance cases, the court was
confronted with the same state OF plead
ings as existed in the Beef Trust cases.
The respondents denied they were guilty OF
the act charged and then attacked the con-
stitutiona1ity of the law in the same plead
ing.
.aThe court said in the insurance cases
this made the pleading bad. but II the de-
had never done the acts charged
as violations of the antitrust law, then 1t
was wholly immaterial to the defendants
whether or not the antitrust law was con-
IL only the theory that
the defendants have violated the antitrust
law that they can be heard in pleading
to attack it's constitutonality. This was
the ruling in the insurance trust cases, and
was the law relative to antitrust prosecu-
tions in the Supreme Court under which the
decision In the motions asking for Judgment
on the pleadings was passed upon to-day,
when the Court overrued the insurance
cases in this regard
Court Divided on Decision.
'Tt Is but fair to say, however, that the
ruling was made by divided court.
Judges Burgess and Marshall standing for
the enforcement Of the antitrust law, as
In the insurance cases, and in favor of up
holding the decision of the court in the
Insurance trust prosecutions, as reported
In the 152 Missouri Report, pase 80. and de-
Gliding that the State was entitled to a
jud gment of custer against the beef trust, |
sepriving the corporations composing Il of
the right to do business In Missouri; while |
Judges Valiant. Cant. Robinson and Brace, |
constituting a majority of the court, over |
ruled the former decision in the prosecution |
above mentioned and declined to oust the |
trust. |
Judge Sherwood was absent from the city |
and did not sit on the motion. The court |
lid substantially, however, sustain my |
contention that the defendants could not |
plead the unconstitutionality of the law |
md at the same time deny the facts, be- |
cause the court sustained my motion to |
strike out the portions of the answer of |
he beef trust. pleading matters of law. |
eaving virtually only an issue OF fact to |
,e decided upon, which testimony must be |
aken.
1.-The practical result is that the court |
,verrules its former decision in the insur-
ance cases on this question.
'Tt Is but fair to Judge Valiant. how
,ver, to say that he dissented from the
ecision in the insurance cases upon the
acts and while six of the court found the
acts in said cases proved a combination
n violation of the antitrust law. Judge |
Valiant decided the facts failed to prove
! trust"
The action of the court to-day in appoint
ng a special commissioner to take testi-
nony will put on the action against the
packers until next fall.
AGAINST NEW GOODWIN PLANT,