The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-09-05
A REMARKABLE CRITICISM.

Gunton's Magazine notes the report that
the leading packing firms will unite 10
form a colossal concern to control the
meat business of the country in order TO
escape prosecution on the charge or CON
spiracy in restraint of trade" and says
this might easily have been anticipated
as the result of the administration policy
of chasing monopolies.' 1t then proceeds
TO criticise the President for turning At
tOrney General Knox loose on the beef
trust" and declares that 1.-The antitrust
policy of the administration has stimulated
monopoly, the very thing it was intended
to prevent, as playing to the galleries often
does" The beef trust" as the tacit COM
hination Of meat packers Is called, has dis
covered that it was proceeding in viola
ton of law as Ii was interpreted by the
Supreme Court in the agreement OF sew
eral corporations to parcel out the terri
tory to different companies manufacturing
iron pipe. That the different packing COM
panies have proposed to unite in one COM
bination is a confession that they have
been doing business in violation of law.
The Department of Justice has enJoined
the different companies from doing bust
ness in violation of law, and for thus pro-
ceeding to enforce the laws designed to
prevent restraint of trade the President
is denounced for Chasing monopoles' and
competing with Mr.. Bryan in attacking
trusts, the "bad-dog" name given to all
corporations.
If the criticism of Gunton's Magazine
means anything it means that the Presi-
dent should not enforce the antitrust law
or that the officers of the Department of
Justice should not bring suits when they
think this law is being violated. If the
present administration should be denounced
for prosecuting combinations violating the
antitrust law, the Mckinley administra-
ton is open to the same censure, the
Addyston pipe case was begun by federal
prosecuting officers. 1t has been charged
for years-as long ago as during Mr.. Cleve-
lands first term-that the meat-packing
concerns had entered into a combination
to control the meat industry of the coun-
try Those combinations set up their
branch houses in every part of the coun-
try and adjusted prices so that those who
were In the business Independent of them
could not sell to retailers Having thus
occurred the trade they agreed upon the
prices and controlled the market. These
packers have been doing this for twenty
years. 1t is not probable that they gener-
ally made prices extortionately high, but
they so managed the business as to pre-
vent competition. Even If their prices
were always very low compared with the
| price of cattle 1t was Gin restraint of
trade" While the packers made the prices
Of meats in cities they were able for a
| long time to compel cattle-raisers to take
whatever price they saw fit to offer, be-
cause no other purchasers appeared in the
market. 1t Is now we'll known that they
could have no competitors in the Western
cattle markets or in the Eastern meat
markets because they demanded and re-
ceived of the railroads rebates on their
| shipments by which from 10 to % per cent
of the money paid for freights was re-
turned to them.
The administration has enjoined the rail-
roads from making rebates, and it has also
enjoined the packers from combining tc
make prices of meats in the distributing
market. This outrageous system of re.
bates has been stopped and the suit against
the packers to enjoin them from putting
up and down prices in manner to pre-
vent competition is pending. 1t was the
present high price of meat that called
public attention to this injustice. even il
the packers are not responsible for tn,
present high prices of meats.
The President has undertaken to put al
end to such combinations in restraint o
trade as that which the meat packer
seem to have made. Those who publicl.
criticise him for so doing Will have few
sympathizers.