The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-02-19
CROSSCUP'S OPINION.
Chief Points in Beef Trust Case
Set Forth.

chicago, FeD- 1s.-Ihe chief points IN
the decision of Judge Grosscup in the
United States circuit court. declaring
the beef trust" to be an unlawful com
bination in restraint of trade, are dis.
cussed at length.
Commerce" said Judge Grosscup, in
his decision. is the sale or exchange O.
commodities. But that which the law
looks upon as the body of commerce is
not restricted to specific acts of sale OF
exchange. It includes the intercourse
all the tnitIatOry and intervening acts
instrumentalities and dealings@that di-
rectly bring about the sale or exchange
Thus, though the sale or exchange is a
commercial act, SO. also, is the sOlicita-
ton of the drummer. whose occupation
it is to bring about the sale or exchange
The whole transactions, from initiation
to elimination, is commerce.
When commerce, thus broadly de-
nned, IS between parties dealing from
different states. to be effected so far as
the immediate act of exchange goes by
transportation from state to state, it is
commerce between the states within
the meaning Of the constitution and the
statute known as the Sherman act But
II IS not the transportation that makes
the transaction interstate commerce.
That is an adjunct only essential to
commerce, but not the test. The under
lying test is that the transaction, as an
entirety, including each part calculated
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
commercial transaction in this sense is
an affair arising from different states
and centering in the acts of exchange
each essential part of the affair being
as much commerce as is the center.
With this definition in mind let US SCI
petition is:
For the purpose of clear exposition.
me me Iacts set forth in the petition should
be separated into two groups: Those
that are intended to bring the transac-
ton within the body of interstate com
merce; and those that are intended to
Tx upon such transaction the character
OF unlawful combination and conspiracy.
Inc nrst group may be stated as fol-
lows: The defendants, controlling so per
cent of the trade and commerce in fresh
meats in the United States, buy in the
course OF their business. live stock ship
ped rom points throughout the United
states, which, having been converted
into fresh meats, is sold again by them
al the places where prepared, to dealers
and consumers in other states; or is sold
through their agents, located in other
states, to dealers and consumers in the
states where the agents are located. The
shipments in the first class of sales are
made directly from the places where the
meat is prepared to the dealers and con-
sumers in other states, and in the lat
ter class to the agents in the other
states who, upon salary, delivery di-
Ieclly TO Lne Q6aleT ana consumers
What may be called the body of
these transactions is two-foId. 1t reach
es backward to the purchases of cattle
that come to defendants from states
other than those in which defendants
manufacture, and it reaches forward to
the sale of the meats after conversion.
to parties dealing with respect thereto
from other states. followed bv shin
ments into other states. Such of these
transa ctions constitute, IN my judgment
interstate commerce
Coming to the other branch of the
transaction-the sales by defendants-a
like result follows. Unquestionably it is
interstate commerce when purchasers
from other states buy directly from the
defendants, and have the meats shipped
to them by the vendors The situs of
such a transaction both as to initiatorv
intercourse and as to TRANSPORTATION in
furtherance of the exchange. includes A
state other than the one from which
defendants deal.
II think the same is true of meat
sent to agents and sold from their
stores. The transaction in such cases.
in reality, is between the purchaser
and the agents principal. The agents
represent the principal at the place
where the exchange takes place, but
the transaction, as q commercial entity
includes the principal and includes him
as dealing from his place of business.
Indeed, such privity exists between the
principal and the transaction that he
could at the instant, as citizen of
another state, sue upon the transaction
in the federal courts: nor have I any
question that if the conditions of this
case were reversed, so that the defend
ants were invoking the shelter. instead
of seeking to escape the obligations of
the commerce clause, federal law
would be found equal to the protection
asked.
Because a thing can be taxed by
the state it does not follow that it lies
eli he s1f inf al a ia n
merce. for commerce, interstate as well
as domestic. is subject to the police and
taxing power of the state so long as
the exercise of such power does not in
terfere with the national government s
exclusive right of regulation.
do the facts set forth in the second
grouping fix upon the transaction, even