The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-19
AGAINST PACKERS
DECISION BY JUDGE GROssCUP IN
THE BEEF TRUST CASE.
Demurrer of the Defendants Over
ruled and Temporary In
junction Granted.
GIyEN UNTIL 4TH OF MARCH
To REPLY TO THE STATEMENTS IN
THE COURTS DECISION.
Interstate Commerce and Combina-
tions Defined at Length by the
Judge I'm His Ruling.
PACKERS CONTENTION NULL
FACTS SHOW THEY HAVE ENTERED
INTO A COMBINATION,
And Those to whom They Ship Meat
I'm Other States Are Merely Agents,
Not Independent Dealers.
Interstate Commerce and Combina-
tfons Defined at Length by the
Judge I'm His Ruling.
PACKERS CONTENTION NULL
FACTS SHOW THEY HAVE ENTERED
INTO A COMBINATION,
And Those to whom They Ship Meat
I'm other States Are Merely Agents,
Not Independent Dealers.

CHICAGO, Feb. B-The so-called "bcef
trust" case was disposed of to-day by
Judge Grosscup in the United States Cir
cult Court, the demurrer of the packers
being overruled and a temporary injunc-
ton granted. The attorneys for the pack
ers made no announcement of their future
intentions. They have until March to dis
cuss the matter with their principals. IL
they deny the facts upon which Judge
Grosscup based his decision. the matter
will go before a master in chancery, who
will hear the evidence. and the case will
again be argued before Judge Grosscup.
An appeal may be taken, in order to hasten
the final adjudication of the case. 1t is not
believed likely that the packers will let the
matter go by default, thus making the in
junction permanent
Commerce. said Judge Grosscup, in his
decision. lis sale or ex ,hange of commod-
ities- But that which the law looks upon
as the body of commerce is not restricted
to specific acts OF sale or exchange. 1t in
cludes the intercourse-all the initiatory
and Intervening acts. instrumentalities and
dealings-that directly bring about the
sale or exchange. Thus, though the sale or
exchange is a commercial act, so also is
the solicitation of the drummer, whose oc-
cupation it is to bring about the sale or
exchange. The whole transaction, from in
itiation 10 elimination. is commerce.
when commerce. thus broadly defined,
is between parties dealing from different
States-to be effected so far as the immedi-
ate act of exchange goes by transportation
from State to State-it is commerce be-
tween the States within the meaning of
the Constitution and the statute known as
the Sherman act. But 1t is not the trans
portation that makes the transaction inter-
state commerce. That is an adjunct only,
essential to commerce. but not the test.
The underlying test Is that the transaction,
as an entirety. including each part calcu-
lated to bring about the result reaches
into two or more States; and that the par
ties dealing with reference thereto deal
from different States. An interstate-com-
merce transaction is, in this sense an af-
ialf l', arising from dinerent States and cen
tial part OF the affair being as much COM
merce as Is the center. With this definition
In mind, let US see what the transaction
made out In the petition is.
TWO GROUPS OF FACTS.
For the purpose of clear exposition the
facts set forth in the petition should be
separated into two groups-those that are
intended to bring the transaction within
the body of interstate commerce and those
that are intended to fix upon such transac-
tion the character of unlawful combination
and conspiracy. The first group may be
stated as follows: The defendants. con-
trolling 90 per cent. of the trade and COM
merce In fresh meats in the United States
buy In the course of their business live
stock shipped from points throughout the
United States, which. having been con-
verted into fresh meats. is sold again by
them at the places where prepared to deal
ers and consumers in other States. or is
eold through their agents located I'm other
states to dealers and consumers I'm the
states where the agents are located The
sbipments In the first class of sales are
made directly from the places where the
meat Is prepared TO the dealers and cor
suners I'm other States, and in the latte-
class 10 the agents In the other States who
upon sale deliver direct to the dealer and
cor sumer.
What may be called the body of these
traI sactions Is twofold. Ii reaches back
warf to the purchase of cattle that con,e
to defendants from States other than those
In which defendants manufacture and n
reaches forward to the sale of the meats
after conversion to parties dealing with
respect thereto from other States followed
by shipments into other States Each of
these transactions constitute in INV iudg
ment, Interstate commerce.
QUESTION OF SALES
Coming to the other branch of the
transaction-the sales by defendants-a like
result follows. Unquestionably il is inter-
state commerce when purchasers from 9TH
er States buy directly from the defend
ants. and have the meats shipped Ia them
by the venders- Such a transaction. both
as to initiatory intercourse and as to trans
portation in furtherance of the exchange.
includes a State other than the one from
which defendants deal. | think the same
Is true OF meat sent to agents and sold
from their stores. The transaction I'm such
cases. i'm reality, is between the purchase,
and the agents principal. The agents rep
resent the principal at the place where
the exchange takes place. but the transac-
tion. the commercial entity. includes
the principal and includes him as dealing
from his place OF business. Indeed. such
privity exists oetween the principal and
slant. as citizen Of another State. sue
upon the transaction In the federal courts
nor have ! any question that IL the con-
the defendants were invoking the shelter
instead OF seeking TO escape the obliga-
tions of the commerce clause. federai 10 =,
would be found equal to the PROTECTION
asked.
Because thing can be taxed by the
State II does not follow that IL lies out
commerce. interstate as well as domestic
Is subject TO the police and taxing power of
power does not interfere with the nationaI sgch
governments exclusive right OF Regulation
CASE OF COMBINATION.
..Do the facts set forth In the second
grouping fix upon the transaction, even
though the transactions be within the
body OF interstate commerce. the charac-
ter of unlawful combination? The aver
ments are as follows: That the defend
ants are engaged In unlawful combina-
tion and conspiracy under the Sherman
act IN (a) directing and requiring their
purchasing agents st the markets where