The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-19

the live stock was customarily purchased
TO refrain from bidding against each other
when making such purchases; OBJ In bid
ding up through their agents the price OF
live stock for few days at time TO IN
duce large shipments. and then ceaslnS
from bids to obtain the live stock thus
shipped at prices much less than 1t would
In the regular way; (c) in agreeing with
meetings between 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 increas-
ing TO dealers and consumers the charges
Tor such meats. and (e) in making agree
ments with the transportation companies
for rebates and other discriminative rates
No one can doubt that these averments
state a case of combination. Whether
the combination be unlawful or not de-
pends on whether 1t is I'm restraint of trade.
The general meaning of that term is no
longer open TO inquiry. II 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
sideration of reasonableness or unreason-
ableness in the combination averred; or is
il to be tested by the prices that result
from the combination. Indeed combina-
tion that leads directly TO lower prices to
the consumer may, within the doctrine OF
these cases. even as against the consum-
er, be restraint of trade; and combina-
ton that leads directly to higher prices
may, as against the producer. be restraint
has no concern with prices, but looks sole
ly TO competition, and to the giving of
competition full play by making illegal any
enort e at restriction upon competition;
Whatever combination has the direct and
necessary effect of restricting competition
is, within the meaning of the Sherman
act as now interpreted, restraint of trade.
RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION.
Thus defined, there can be no doubt that
the agreement of the defendants to refrain
from bidding against each other in the pur-
chase of cattle is combination 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 de-
PENDANTS to fix prices upon and restrict the
quantities of meat shipped to their agents
or their customers. Such agreements can
be nothing less than restrictions upon COM
petition, and therefore, combination In re-
straint of trade; and thus viewed, the pc
ttion, as an entirety, makes out a case un-
der the Sherman act.
"It may be true that the way of enforcing
any decree under this petition is beset with
difficulties, and that literal enforcement
may result in vexatious interference with
defendants affairs. But in the inquiry be-
fore me l am not at liberty TO stop before
such considerations. The Sherman act, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court, is the
law of the land. and to the law as 1t stands
both court and people must yield obedi-
ence. The demurrer Is overruled and the
motion for preliminary injunction granted"
The defendants against whom the injunc-
tion is issued are: Swift & Co, the Cudahy
Packing Company. the Hammond Packing
Company, Armour & Co., the Armour Pack
ing Company, the G. III. Hammond Com
pany, the Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Com
pany, Nelson Morris & Co. partnership. j.
Ogden Armour. p. A. Valentine. Calvin NJ.
Favorite. Arthur Meeker, Thomas j. Con-
nors Charles 8. Langdon, Michael Cudahy,
Edward A. Cudahy, Patrick Cudahy, Albert
F. Boschert. Gustavus F. Swift. Lewis F.
Swift Lawrence A. Carton. William =. Rus
sell, Albert II. Veeder. Henry Veeder, Ed
ward c. Swift, Ferdinand Sulzberger and
w. III. Noyes.