The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-21

and when the necessities of the trade
would REQUIRE they would agree TO ctlrtail
their design and purpose being to limit
the quantity Of meats in sight at New
York and adjacent points and raise the
prices The affidavit covered at consid-
cradle length the manner in which the al
legged meetings were conducted.
William G. Rider swore that he was for
merly with the Fairbanks Canning Com
pany. a corporation owned and controlled
by Nelson Morris & Co. In 1856, he tran
scribed, he declared in his affidavit,
signed agreement between Norris x Co,
Armour & Co and Swift & Co. This agree
rnent. he declared, provided that represen-
tatives of the signers were TO meet at
specified times or upon call OF ap-
pointed arbitrator; that prices should be
maintained: that a list Of discharged en-
ployes should be kept and fine of $1,000
imposed for violations OF the agreement.
He deposed that he had actual knowledge
Of the carrying out of the agreement which
he had transcribed.
CODE BOOK USED.
Charles E. Holland, of Brooklyn, n. Y,
swore that in 1900 he was employed by Mel
son Morris & Co. and that IT was his duty
TO translate kilograms received in cipher.
These kilograms showed he said, the ex
istence of an agreement. A code book and
letter press copybook, both said to belong
TO the Cudahy Packing Company, were
submitted in connection with this affidavit.
S. Lemon Hoover. engaged in the meat
business at Washington, d. c., for twenty
five years, says he has personal knowledge
that every week the local managers in that
city for the principal Chicago packing con-
Germs held meetings to compare notes; that
the number of loads of meat received was
divided among the wholesale houses on an
agreed basis and that none of the packing
houses was allowed 10 ship into that mar
ket more than its allotted share. He also
knew of the existence of a credit or black
list agreement
Charles A. DAILY, James A Hoffman and
John 3. Schroth, all of Washington, d. c.,
made affidavits substantially the same as
that of Mr.. Hoover.
Arthur E. Adams, of Baltimore. once
local manager there for Nelson Morris &
Co, swore he knew of the existence of a
combination for the purpose Of fixing prices
and controlling the supply of fresh meats.
John III. Durbin, a wholesale meat dealer
of Denver, also tells about a combination
among the packers representatives for fix
ing prices.
Henry Gerhard, of Denver, says there is
no longer any independence in the Denver
market and that prices for products of
packing concerns are fixed in Chicago
Charles II. Brumer, OF Baltimore, Frank
manager for the Cudahy Company in New
York Charles c. Carroll, of Washington,
William A. Brice. of Baltimore, and Emma
b. Meyers. formerly a stenographer for
Swift & Co, all swore 10 knowledge of an
agreement TO maintain prices and of meet
ings held TO carry out the terms of that
agreement.
William II. H Hoover inspector Of meats
and food for the government in the District
OF Columbia, swearS that there is absolute
uniformity of prices among the packers
agents and there is no sign of competition.
THE DEFENDANTS.
The restraining order asked for by the
district attorney was substantially as fol-
lows: The government asked that "a
temporary order issue from this court, re-
Their order of this court, the defendants,
the Cuhady Packing Co., Armour & Co.,
the Armour Packing Co.. the c. II. Ham
mond Co., the Schwartzchild & Sulzberger
Co., (corporations) Nelson Morris, Edward
Morris and Iran Morris. (copartners as
Nelson Morris & Coz; ]. Ogden Armour,
Arthur Meeker Thomas j. Corners,
Charles Z. I,angdon, Michael Cuhady, Ed
ward A. Cuhady Patrick Cuhady, Albert
f. Borchert. Gustav +. Swift, Lewis F.
Swift, Lawrence A. Corten, D. Edwin
Hartwell, jesse P. Lyman, Frank E. Vogel,
Lewis Pfaelser, William Russell, Albert H.
Needer. Edward c. Swift, Ferdinand Sulz-
berger and w. II. Noyes, citizens of Hi
nois, Massachusetts and New York, their
agents and attorneys and all other persons
acting or claiming TO act for them, from
violating the provisions of the act of
Congress entitled an act TO protect trade
and commerce against unlawful restraints
anu iuOuOpulltS, anu " IcSll ain the pdCh-
ers from engaging or continuing in any
combination or conspiracy as to trade and
commerce in fresh meats" The order then
goes on 10 ask that the packers be re-
strained from the various overt acts as
charged in the bill filed and says lat the
several stockyards and open and com
petitive markets in Chicago, st. Louis, St
Paul and any other place in the United
States where they custOmarily purchase
live stock coming from those markets"
When the governments case had been stat
ed Attorney J. S. Miller for the packers,
made reply in which he said that the pack
ers in question do only 40 per cent. of the
packing business OF the country. and that
this proportion could not control the en-
tire business He asserted that the prices
of dressed meats were relatively less to-
day than they were at other times The
desire OF the packers was, he said TO have
a full and impartial trial, and IL objection
were made at this time to the cling of
the petition and il were tried on ex parte
affidavits this would not be obtained. He
not prepared TO say whether the de-
Tense would be by demurrer by answer.
But he objected 10 two terms of the order
viz: One preventing the packers from
tering into an agreement respecting uni
form credits. and another referring to
agreements for refusing 10 sell TO delln-
quent dealers or dealers on the black list.
These provisions, he maintained. were not
within the provinces of the court or con-
trary to the provisions OF the Sherman
antitrust law of 1890.
Solicitor General Richards replied 10 At
torney Miller, contending that the two OBJ
jections made to the order related TO two
powerful questions of the Combination
wished TO read affidavits to support the
contention. United States Assistant Dis
trIct Attorney Day spoke TO the same ef-
feet.