The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1903-02-19
BEEF TRUST CASE DECISION
Continued from First page.l

NIDntlnGGu First PdRel
PENDANTS manufacture; and it reaches
forward to the sale of the meats, after
conversion. to parties dealing with re-
spect thereto from other states, follow
ed by shipments into other states.
Each Of these transactions constitutes,
in my Judgment, interstate commerce.
Coming to the other branch of the
transaetion-the sales by defendants
a like result follows. Unquestionably
It is interstate commerce when pur-
chasers from other states buy directly
from the defendants, and have the
meats shipped to them by the vendors
The status of such a transaction, both
as to initiatory intercourse and as to
transportation in turtherance of the ex-
change, includes state other than the
one from which the defendants deal.
II think the same is true of meat sent
to agents and sold from their stores.
The transaction in such cases, in real
ity, is between the purchaser and the
agents principal. The agents represent
the principal at the place where, the
exchange takes place, but the transac-
ton, in commercial entity, includes
the principal, and includes him as deal
ing from his place of business. Indeed,
such privity exists between the princi-
pal and the transaction that he could
at the instant, as citizen of another
state, sue upon the transaction in the
federal courts; nor have any question
that if the conditions of this case were
reversed so that the defendants were
invoking the shelter, instead of seeking
to escape the obligations of the COM
merce clause, federal law would be
found equal to the protection asked.
Because thing can be taxed by the
state 1t does not follow that it lies out
side the body of interstate commerce.
for commerce, interstate as well as do
nestle, is subject to the police and tax
ing power of the state, so long as the
exercise of such power does not inter-
fere with the national governments ex-
elusive right of regulation.
do the facts set forth in the second
grouping fix upon the transaction, even
though the transaction be within the
body of interstate commerce, the char
acter of unlawful combination? The
saverments are as follows: That the de-
PENDANTS are engaged in a unlawful
combination and conspiracy under the
quiring their purchasing agents, at the
markets where the live stock was GUS
tomarily purchased, TO refrain from
bidding against each other when MAX
ing such purchases (b) in bidding up,
through their agents, the price of live
stock, for a few days at time, to in
duce large shipments and then ceasing
from bids, to obtain the live stock thus
shipped ait prices much less than it
would bring in the regular way; (c) in
agreeing at meetings them upon prices
to be adopted by all, and restriction
upon the quantities of meat shipped;
(d) in directing and requiring their
agents throughout the United States to
impose uniform charges for carriage for
delivery, thereby increasing to dealers
and consumers the charges for such
meats; and (e) in making agreements
with the transportation companies for
rebates and other discriminative rates.
ftNo one can doubt that these aver
lnents state case. of combination.
Whether the combination be unlawful
or not, depends on whether it is in re-
straint of the trade.
1.-THE general meaning of that term is
no longer open to inquiry. 1t has been
passed upon carefully by the supreme
court in the freight association case
and in the traffic case. 1t is clear
from them that restraint of trade is
not dependent upon any consideration
of reasonableness or unreasonableness
in the combination averred; nor is it
to be tested by the prices that result
from the combination. Indeed, COM
bination that leads directly to lower
prices to the consumer may, within the
doctrine of these cases, even as against
the consumer, be restraint sof trade;
and combination that leads directly to
higher prices, may, as against the pro-
Queer, be restraint of trade. The stat
ute, thus interpreted has no concern
with prices, but looks solely to compe-
tition and to giving competition full
play, by making illegal any effort at
restriction upon competition. What
ever combination has the direct and
necessary effect of restricting compe-
tition, is within the meaning of the
Sherman act as now interpreted, re-
Straint of trade.
'Thus defined there can be no doubt
that the agreement of the defendants
to refrain from bidding against each
other in the purchase of cattle, is COM
bination in restraint of trade; so also
their agreement to bid up prices to
stimulate shipments, intending to cease
from bidding when the shipments have
arrived. The same result, follows when
we turn to the combination of defend
ants to fix prices upon, and restrict
the quantities of, meat shipped to their