The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-21
SO Wide in scope that Packers Must
Promptly Change Methods to
Escape Punishment.
ARGUMENT OF ATTORNEYS
AND REMARKS OF THE JUDGE BE-
FORE ISSUING PAPERS.
Complaint of the Government MOdi-
fed in Minor Clauses-Text of
the Amended Order.

against the members of the so-called pack
ers combine is now in force. 1t was issued
this evening by Judge Peter S. Grosscup
after the close of arguments in the United
the relief prayed for in the bill filed by Dis
trict Attorney Bethea on May 10. 1t is so
wide in it's scope that II the packers. or
their agents continue with their present al
legged uniform arrangements they will be
taken into court on contempt proceedings
and the burden of proof will be on them TO
show that they have not violated the order
in any particular.
Little opposition was raised against the
governments petition. Attorney John S.
Miller. who was the sole representative Of
the packers present. pointed out some OBJ
jectionable clauses in the draft OF an order
presented by Mr.. Bethea. These concerned
the alleged agreements for credit, black
listing and carriage. Judge Grosseup
thought some of these minor clauses had
been made too prominent, and ne himself
drew a form of order that pleased both
sides. At the same time the order was en-
hibts were filed for the government.
The courtroom was crowded as it has
seldom been before. General Counsel Mill
er sat alone to represent the defendants,
though there were many Office employees of
the packers among the spectators. For the
government District Attorney Bethea was
the leader and was aided by Solicitor Gen
eral ]. K. Richards and Special Counsel
Day, of Washington. and Assistant Dis
trict Attorneys Morrison, Pagin and Davis.
There were also present District Attorney
Worthington, of Springfield, and District
Attorney Healing, Of Indianapolis.
District Attorney Bethea had read part
of the bill before Judge Grosscup inter
rupted him with the statement that this
would be unnecessary, as the court was
already advised of the charges made by
the government Mr.. Bethea then filed
number OF at1daVits. Attorney Miller next
made a statement on behalf of the pack
ers and said that while he not pre-
pared TO oppose the government petition
at present he was authorized to submit 10
the entry of the order on behalf Of his
clients. Solicitor General Richards made
a brief statement in answer TO some OF
the objections raised by Attorney Miller.
Attorney Day also spoke briefly on behalf
of the government At the conclusion of
these remarks the order was taken away
by Judge GroSScup for amendment and
later was filed.
Unless the defendants decide to make
fight at an early date in an effort TO have
the order set aside, they will have until
August 10 make reply 10 the complaint.
Attorney Miller said tonight that he can
not tell whether a demurrer, a plea or an
answer will be filed. though the first named
is the most likely TO be the form of the
packers defense. The subpoenaes served
recently on the defendants commanded
them to file their appearances separately
before July Z.
TEXT OF THE ORDER.
mt
Judge Grosscup was as follows: This
cause coming on to be heard upon the
motion of the complainants for temper
airy injunction, as prayed in said bill, and
the complainants having exhibited their
sworn bill 10 the court and divers aft
davits in support thereof. no answer or de-
murrer having been filed thereto, nor any
affidavits in resistance thereof and
the court having heard the argu-
ments of counsel and being fully
advised in the premises, doth order
that a temporary writ of injunction
issue restraining until the final hearing
further order of this court, the said de-
PENDANTS (the court here naming all the
defendants whose names have been re-
peatedly published) and each of them. their
respective agents and attorneys, and all
other persons acting or claiming, or assum-
ing TO act under their authority, or that of
part in or performing any contract, com
bination or conspiracy, the purpose or eff
feet of which will be as to trade and COM
merce in fresh meast a restraint of trade
or commerce among the several states,
Territories and the District OF Columbia,
either by directing or requiring their re-
spective agents from refraining TO bid
against each other in the purchase of live
stock. or collusively and by agreement,
refraining from bidding against each other
at such sales. or by arbitrarily raising or
lowering prices. or fixing uniform prices
at which said meats shall be Sold either
directly or through their respective agents
or by curtailing the quantity OF such
meats shipped TO such markets and agents,
or by imposing penalties for deviations
from prices establishing or maintaining
uniform rules for the giving of credit TO
dealers In such matters, or by imposing
uniform charges for carriage and delivery
of such meats to dealers and consumers,
or by any other method or device. the
purpose and effect of which is TO restrain
trade and commerce as aforesaid
And also from violating the provisions OF
the said act of Congress by combining or
conspiring together, or with each other and
others, to monopOlize or attempting to mo-
nOpolize any part of the trade and com
merce in fresh meats among the several
States and Territories and the District of
Columbia. by demanding. obtaining or with
or without the connivance of the officers or
agents thereof, or OF any Of them. receiving
from the railroad companies or other COM
mon carriers transporting such fresh meats
" or by means OF rebates. or by any other
device transportation OF or for such fresh
meats from the points of the preparation
and production of the same from livestock
or elsewhere. to the markets for the sale
of the same 10 dealers and consumers I'm
other States and Territories than those
wherein the same are so prepared, or the
District of Columbia, at less than the regu-
lar rates which may he established or in
force. on their several lines of transporta-
ton under the provisions in that behalf OF
the laws OF the United States for the regu-
lations of commerce
THE AFFIDAVITS.
The evidence presented by District At
torney Bethea when the case was opened
consisted of bulky batch Of afhdavits col
lec5ed from persons formerly connected
with the packing houses that have been
made defendants in the suit. The afidavits
were twenty in number and the attorneys
INDUCED in short tilt over the question
OF whether they should be read, but the
court decided that no reading would be per-
mitted until the issue had been slated.
The most important affidavit submitted
is that of Daniel W. Meredith OF Jersey
City. y. j. For six years he manage
for Armour Company at Milwaukee, and
manager I'm Philadelphia for three years
he had been with Swift * Company Since
1898. he declared. six general managers for
the big companies have been accustomed
TO meet at least once a week I'm the city
Of New York 10 reconcile the differences
between themselves concerning the opera