Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1903-02-19
BEEF TRUST is ENIOINED
Court Holds Packers OOnspired Illegally in
Restraint Of Trade
JUDGE GRosscUP REVIEWS ALLEGATIONS
~. 's Ample Evidence That Cattle
b. Were Manipulated and
= of Products CurtaiIed
set Competition.

CHICAGO III, Feb. 1s.-The so-called |
beef trust" case was disposed of today |
by Judge Grosscup in the circuit court |
the demurrer OF the packers being over
ruled and a temporary injunction granted. |
The packers made no announcement Of
their future Intentions. They have until !
March 4 TO discuss the matter. II they !
deny the facts, upon which Judge Grosscup !
gave his decision. the matter will go be- |
fore a master in chancery. who will hear
the evidence, and the case will afterward
be argued before Judge Grosscup. But
in any event Il is not believed likely the |
packers will let the matter go by default, |
thus making the injunction permanent.
Divides Facts Into Groups.
In giving his decision Judge Grosscup
said:
For the purpose Of clear exposition, the
facts set forth in the petition should be
separated into two groups:
First-Those that are intended TO bring
the transaction within the body OF in
Second-Those that are intended TO fix
upon 1t the character Of unlawful com
bination and conspiracy,
The first group may be stated as fol-
lows. The defendants. controlling 81 per
cent of the trade in fresh meats in the
United States, buy, in the course of their
business, livestock shipped from points
throughout the United States, which, hav-
ing Deen converted into treSh meats, Is
sold again by them at the places where
prepared, to dealers and consumers I'm
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
I first class Of sales are made directly from
the places where the meat is prepared to
the dealers, and in the latter class to the
agents in the other states. which, upon
| consumers.
What may be called the body of these
transactions is two-fold. 1t reaches back
ward 10 the purchases of cattle that come
4 to defendants from states other than those
! I'm which defendants manufacture; and 1t
reaches forward to the sale of the meats
/ after conversion, to parties in other states.
Each of these transactions constitute. in
my judgment interstate commerce.
Coming to the other branch OF the trens-
action-the sales by defendants-a like re-
! suit follows. Unquestionably II is inter
other states buy directly from the de-
I fendants. and have the meats shipped to
/ them by the vendors.
/ think the same Is true of meat sent to
! agents, and sold from their stores The
| transaction in such cases, in reality, is
| principal. The agents represent the prin-
| cipal at the place where the exchange
takes place, bat the transaction; as com,
includes him as dealing from his place OF
business. Indeed, the principal could,
| transaction in the federal courts: nor
have ] any question that IL the conditions
Of this case were reversed; SO that the
stead of seeking TO escape the obligations
4 of the federal law, Il would be found COM
petent to give the protection. asked
Because a thing can be taxed by the state,
! IL docs not follow that It lies outside the
body OF interstate commerce. 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 interfere with the national govern
ments exlusive right of regulation.
| Find. IIIa1aV Cou.htuasfan
Do the facts set forth in the second group
/ ing fix upon the transaction the character
! of unlawful combination?
The averments are that the defendants
are engaged in an unlawful combination
/ and conspiracy under the Sherman act in
! "a Directing and requiring their purchas-
ing agents at the markets where the live
| stock was customarily purchased to refrain
/ from bidding against each other when max
/ ing such purchases;
| (2) In bidding up, through their agents,
| the price OF live stock for a few days at
| time to induce large shipments, and then
ceasing from bids, to obtain the live stock
| thus shipped at prices much less than IL
/ would bring In the regular way;
go In agreeing at meetings between them
striction upon the quantities Of meat
shipped;
| throughout the United States to impose
| uniform charges for carriage for delivery,
F., thereby increasing to dealers and consum-,
(5) In making agreements with the trans
portation companies for rebates and other
discriminative rates.
| state case of combination. Whether the
combination be unla wfui not depends
! on whether IL is in restrain 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. II is clear from them that restraint
OF trade is not dependent upon any consid-
| Grafton of reasonableness or unreasonable
! IN the combination aXerrRQ. neither Is
IL TO be tested by prices that result from the
combination; Indeed. combination that
| sumner may within the doctrine of these
cases. even as against the consumer be
| restraint of trade and combination that
leads directly to higher Uriees may, as
| against the producer be restraint of trade.
The statute thus interpreted has nc con-
cern with prices, but looks solely TO COM
petition, and TO giving competition full
play, by making illegal an effort at restric-
| tion. Whatever combination has the direct
and necessary effect of restricting compe-
tition is. within the meaning of the Sher-
man act, as now interpreted, restraint OF
trade
Thus defined. there can be no doubt the
agreement OF defendants to refrain from
Dloaine asalnst esth othes IoE calue ~, ~
| their agreement 10 bid up prices TO stimu-
late shipments, intending to cease from
bidding when the shipments arrive.
The same result follows when we turn 10
/ the commission OF defendants TO fix prices
I and restrict the quantities of meat shipped
I agreements can be nothing less than re-
straints upon competition and, therefore.
! combination In restraint of trade.
! Thus viewed. the petition an entirety,
makes out a case under the Sherman act.
| IL may be true that the way OF enforcing
. any decree under this petition is besFt with
| difficulties and that a literal endorsement
I may result In VexatiOus interference with
defendants affairs. But in the inquiry be-
| fore me- 1 am not at liberty TO stop be-
, fore such considerations. The Sherman act
as interpreted by the supreme court Is the
law OF the land, and to the law. II
! stands. both court and people must yield
, Z obedience.
Demurrer Is overruled and the motion foI
preliminary Injunction granted.
The defendants enjoined are: Swift and
: Company, Cndahy Packing company. Ham
; mond Packing company. Armour 4 Co. Ar
mour Packing company; G. H. Hammond
company: schwsrzschild & sulzberger com.
pany. Nelson Morris Co.
! Partners: ]. Ogden Armour. p. A. Val
! entine, Calvin N. Favorite, Arthur Meeker
= Thomas J. Connors, Charles s. LAngdon
y Michael Cudahy. Edward A. Cudahy, Pat
d rick Cudahy. Albert F.. Boscherdt. Gus
q tavus r. Swift, Lewis r. Swift. Lawrene'
= A. Carton. ID. Edwin HartWell. Jesse p
q Lyman. Frank b. Vogel. Louis PfaelEer
y william J. Russell. Albert II. Veeder. Henri
g Veeder. Edward C. Swift. Ferdinand sulE
berger and W. II. NOyes.
4