Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1905-01-12
THE BEEF
TRUST CASE
Attorney General Concludes Argument
In Behalf Of Government.

? Washington, Jan. 9.-Attorney General
} Moody today resumed bis argument on
} behalf of the government before the Su-
J preme Court Of the United States, in the
case of Swift & Co. vs.. the United States,
commonly known as the Beef Trust case,
begun last Friday.
Mr. Moody declared the inquiry had
narrowed down to only two questions for
} the determination of the court:
Whether the commerce in the case was
commerce among the States and, # 30,
whether the agreements constitute ni5-
J nopoly or any part of it.
Mr.. Moody said the following state Of
facts is clearly shown:
persons owning live stock and living
in other States and Territories than those
where the stock yards are situated, were
! accustomed to send much stock to the va
rious stock yards named for the purpose
of sale there. The defendants, who were
severally engaged in the business of buying
live stock, for the purpose of slaughtering
and converting it into fresh meat, entered
J into an agreement With each other to re.
frsin from bidding against each other ex-
cept colorably, in the purchase of such
live stock, with the purpose and result of
suppressing all competition in such pur-
chases."
An agreement having been thus clearly
alleged, he said the question arose as to
whether the agreement relates to inter
state commerce. The interstate character
of the transaction, be said, where an own
er of commodity living in one State,
ships it to another, continues from the be-
ginning Of the shipment to and including
the sale of the commodity.
Mr.. Moody concluded that these trans
actions were in restraint of interstate com.
merce, and so within the meaning of the
law.
Turning to the question of selling, Mr..
Moody said: :.
THE defendants have combined and
conspired arbitrarily, to raise, lower and
fix prices of fresh meat, and to keep them
uniform Ms among themselves. This con-
spiracy is rendered effective by periodical,
secret meetings throughout the country 10y
the agents and attorneys of the defendants.
At these meetings uniform prices are
agreed upon, due notice is given of the
prices so agreed upon, and the defendants
adhere to the prices thus fixed. That
such an agreement relates to and restrains
commerce, according to the well-settled
rule of this country, is so plain that can
not permit myself to argue it,
The only question was whether the COM
merce it restrains was interstate commerce
and on this point Mr. Moody said Of the
conduct OF the defendants:
Controlling sixty per cent. of the fresh
meat industry of the whole country, they
sit down at their slaughteriDg and packing
establishments, and, with the aid of the
telegraph, through the instrumentalty of
countless agents and attorneys spread
throughout the country, clothing their
transactions aud sheltering their mis-con-
duct by ciphers and secret codes-lower or
raise and when thus lowered or raised, fix
and maintain absolutely, as among them
selves, the price of every pound of one of
the great necessities of life as it enters and
follows the channels of interstate COM
merce. This is an unlawful restraint of
commerce among the States"
In conclusion Mr. Moody said:
These defendants are engaged in in
terstate commerce. They buy their raw
material, which is gathered together from
all the cattle raising States and Territories
of the Union, and sent to the great live
stock markets of the country. After they
have transformed that material into the
finished product, they cell it throughout
the United States. The combination
which they haye entered into is designed
to restrain all their business transactions,
exclusive of manufacture, by the suppress
sion of all competition therein, both in
their purchases and their sales, by the fix
ing and maintaining Of uniform prices for
their product and 80 far as poss BILE, uniform
prices for their raw material; and by OBJ
tanning such unlawful advantages as tend
to create monopoly in necessity Of life.
MIR. Miller concluded the case for the
packers. On the point as to whether the
understanding between the packers effects
a restraint of trade as prohibited by the
Sherman act, be argued that the present
case presents no analogy to the Addy-
stone Pipe case, for in that case there was
a division of territory among manufact-
urers. No such effort was made in the
case of the packers