The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-02-19

ing from bids, to obtain the live stock
thus shipped at prices much less than
1T would bring in- the regular way; (c)
IN agreeing at meetings between them
upon prices to be adopted by all and
restriction upon the quantities of meat
shipped; Cd in directing and requir-
ing their agents throughout the United
States to impose uniform charges for
carriage for delivery, thereby increaS-
ing to dealers and consumers the
charges for such meats; and (e) in
making agreements with the transpor-
tation companies for rebates and other
discriminative rates.
A Case of Combination.
mo one can doubt that these aver
mentS state case of combination.
Whether the combination be unlawful
or not depends on whether it is in re-
straint of trade. The general meaning
of that term is no longer open to in
qulry. 1t has been passed upon care
fully 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 combina-
ton.
Indeed, combination that leads di-
rectly to lower prices to the consumer
may, within the doctrine of these cases,
even as against the consumer, be re-
straint Of trade; combination that
leads directly to higher prices, may, as
again the producer, be restraint of
trade. The statute thus interpreted has
no concern with prices but looks SOLE
ly to competition, and to the giving of
competition full play by making Illegal
any effort at restriction upon competi-
ton. Whatever combination has the
direct and necessary effect of restrict
Ing competition is, within the meaning
of the Sherman act as now interpreted.
restraint of trade.
Undoubtedly Restraint of Trade.
THUS defined there can be no doubt
that the agreement of the defendants to
refrain from bidding against each 9TH
er in the purchase of cattle is combina-
ton in restraint Of trade; so also their
agreement to bid up prices to stimulate
shipments, intending to cease from bid
ding when the shipments have arrived.
The same result follows when we turn
. to the combination of defendants to
fix prices upon, and restrict the guam
titles of, meat shipped to their agents
or their customers. Such agreements
can be nothing less than restriction
upon competition, and therefore COM
bination in restrain of trade; and thus
viewed therefore as an entirety makes
out case under the Sherman act.
1T may be true that the way of en-
forcing any decree under this action
is beset with difficulties. and that a
literal enforcement may result in vex-
atious interference with defendants
affairs, but in the inquiry before me I
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
it stands both court and people must
Yield obedience. The demurrer is over
ruled, and the motion for preliminary
injunction granted"
Who the Defendants Are.
The defendants again whom the In
junction is issued are Swift & Co.,
Cudahy Packing company, Hammond
Packing company, Armour & Co., Ar
mour Packing company, G. H. Ham
mond company, SchwarzschiId & Solz-
berger company, Nelson Morris & Co.
partnership, ]. Odgden Armour, p.
A. Valentine Calvin, M. Faborite. Ar
thur Meeker, Thomas j. Connors,
Charles S. Langdon, Michael Cudahy,
Edward A. Cudahy, Patrick Cudahy,
Albert F. Boscherdt, Gustavus F.
Swift, Lewis F. Swift, Lawrence A.
Carton, D. Edwin Hartwell, Jesse p.
Lyman, Frank B. Vogel, Louis Pfael-
zer, William ]. Russell, Albert H. Wee
der, Henry Veeder, Edward c. Swift,
Ferdinand Sulzberger and w. H,
Noyes.