The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1904-12-27
ARGUMENT ON SUITS BROUGHT
BY THE ATToRENY GENERAL.
COURTS POWER
Attorney for the Defendants Insists
That the Supreme Court Is
Without Jurisdiction.

zeal ., -
cases are now in the hands OF the SUI
preme court, in which tribunal several
hours of yesterday were devoted to
hearing argument on the demurrer
filed by the defendants in each OF the
five suits brought by Attorney General
James Donovan.
The defendant companies are Swift
-& Co., Armour & Co, Cudahy & Co,
and the Hammond Packing company
8 of Chicago and Pueblo, there being
two suits against the latter. In his
petition to the court at the beginning
;.of h actions the attorney general
alleged that the companies had form
led a trust or combination for the con-
ItrOl of prices of livestock and pack
inghouse products, all in violation OF
!, the constitution and statutes OF the
state of Montana, and he asked the
!, court to declare the companies fran
], schise and property in this state for
,,Ilfeited and perpetually enjoin them
..from the transaction OF business in
Montana.
Combine" on Attorney.
When the cases came up in the SUI
i ,preme court yesterday, Attorney Cen
5ral Donovan and Attorney M. S. Gum
appeared within the bar. The court
inquired of Mr.. Gum if he would rep
resent all five of the defendant compa-
8 alies, and Upon his answering in the
affirmative the attorney general laugh.
lngly remarked that that fact seemeI
81 clear Indication that there had been
\ combine between the big companies.
Mr.. Gum filed a demurrer challeng-
ng the complaints on two grounds:
Sirst, that the supreme court had mo
Jurisdiction of these cases, and, Sec
FiDnd, that the complaint did not state
Rtiacts sufficient to constitute a cause
ecef action. His main argument in sup
ln'Ort OF the demurrer was to the effect
|hehat the section of the penal code
frander which the proceedings were
Msrought provided a punishment for
Ftycts i%nterdicted by the constitution,
Dnnd among other things provided a
Itne and forfeiture OF the corporations
knsroperty n a prohibition preventing
PY from doing any business in the
putate If convicted OF the charge set
aprth in the complaint.
interstate Commerce.
The imposition OF a fine and the for
5iture of the concerns property, Mr..
ua.lnn argued, could come only from a
riminal court; an equity court had
70 jurisdiction over a crime, and
therefore the defendant corporations
.rere entitled ito a jury trial.
1t was clear from the complaint, he
aid, that the defendants were en-
aged in interstate commerce., as it
bowed that they were engaged in
Nltchering cattle, sheep, etc., in Chi.
ago and shipping the products into
fontana and distributing them
Bmong the dealers. Therefore,, this
purt could not by any writ of injunc.
son prohibit the conduct OF such bust.
bess. The right of the state in cases
this character ceases where the
Hght of the federal government be-
4ns.
Attorney Generals Contention.
iAttorney General Donovan combat
I'd the contention of the defendant
q question of jurisdiction, declar-
THAT the cases were easily such as
bring them within the jurisdiction
the supreme court. The decision
the merger cases, he said, showed :
fainly that the fact that it was a =
Anal case did not divest the supreme
9lrt OF jurisdiction. Numerous decis-
ms were cited j nsupport of the attor.
~ generals contention that the
Rses We're entirely proper ones for
9 consideration of the tribunal. =
MI. Gum stated to the cour that
. secured affidavits which would
Pet the allegations of the complaint, :.
d it permitted would offer them in $
urt. a
Attorney General Donovan objected a
the introduction of the atidavits. s
less the state were permitted to ex- v
bine THE atlantis, and after consulta- IT.
y the court ruled that the ~afidavits h
Puld not be admitted. i,
I want to marry you," said the ris- q
young author, bluntly. a
fWhy?" coyly asked the great heir G
, preparing to revel in the impas- '