Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1905-02-02
THE BEEF TRUST DOWNED
Supreme COnrt Upholds Injunction Grant
ed in tie Lower Courts.
PACKERS COMBINE DECLARED ILLEGAL
Opion Declares a Conpiracy to Fix Prices
Was Proved Sherman Antitrust La"
Has Been Violated Interstate Trade Az
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes De-
Gvers Opinion for Tribunal.

Washington, D. c. (SpcclaD .-The
Supreme Court of the United States
decided the case of the United States
VS.. Swift & Co., known as the Beet
Trust case, charging conspiracy among
the packers to fix prices on fresh meats,
etc.
The injunction, which was upheld,
was granted in Chicago in 1903 by
United States Judge Grosscup. The
Government instituted the case through
District Attorney Bethea Of Chicago,
When the packers took an appeal At
torney General Moody appeared for the
Government in the arguments. This
was in December last
The opinion was handed down by us
tice Holmes and affirmed the decision
of the court below, which was against
the packers. =.
In his opinion Justice Holmes dis
cusscd at length the various contentious
of the packers, and disposed OF them
individually. He admitted that some
of the charges were less specific than
desirable, but said this was necessarily
true on account of the vast extent OF the
field covered He added that sufficient
cause had been shown 10 prove contin-
uous offense, and an offense OF such
nature as to justify the proceeding.
| The opinion continues the injunction
granted against the packers under the
Sherman antitrust law by the lower
! courts The on,r0n wac cN"rrrrcd IN
by all the members of the Court
Summarizing lnc b'tIS, justice Holmes
said
"It charges combination Of DON'T
nant proportion o Five dealers in fresh
meat throughout the United States not
TO bid against each other i'll the live
stock markets Of the different States;
TO bid I'D prices for few days, in order
! 10 induce the cattlemen to send their
stock to the stockyards; to fix prices at
which they will sell, and to that end to
restrict shipments OF meat when neccS..
Sarv TO establish a Uniform rule OF
credit to dealers; to kcrp a blast list; to
make uniform and improper charges
for carriage, and finally to get less than
! lawful rates from the railroads to the
! exclusion OF competitors,
Referring to the allegation OF lack OF
continuity in the charges, he SAID
"Whatevcr may be thought concern
ing the proper construction OF the stat,
ute, a bill in equity is not TO be read
and construed as an indictment would
have been read and construed a hun
dred years ago, but it is to be taken TO
mean what i, fairly conveys TO dspas-
sionatc reader by a fairly exact use OF
English speech. Thus read, this bill
seems 10 Us intended to allege success
Sivc elements OF single connected
scheme"
He disposed Of the charge Of multi
fariousncs," in the following language
The scheme as whole seems TO Us
to be within reach Of the law. The
constituent clements, as We have stated
them, are enough to give 10 the scheme
a body. and, for all that We can say to
accomplish it. Moreover, whatever we
may think OF them separately, when
we take them up as distinct charges
they are alleged sufficiently as elements
OF the scheme, 1t is suggested that the
several acts charged are lawful, and that
intent can make no difference, But they
are bound together as the parts Of a
single plan The plan may make the
parts unlawful.
Intent is almost essential 10 such a
combination, and is essential to such an
attempt Where acts are not sufficient
= I ,,,.h
the law seeks to prevention instance,
the monopoly-but require further acts
in addition to the mere force Of nature
to bring the result to pass, an intent 10
bring to pass is necessary in order to
produce dangerous probability that it
will happen"