The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-01-07
supply Not So ReguIar.

Fresh Meat Fairly Uniform but Ca supply Not So Regular.
 Washington, Jan. 6.-Argument in the case of Swift & Co. ys. the United I States, known as the beef trust cone
 spiracy case, was begun before the su- prene court of the United States to- l day by Attorney John $. Miller, of Chi cago, in behalf of the packers. He at
 tackled the bill of the government as 1 insufficient in it's failure to allege facts necessary to constitute cause of ac-
 ton, and said that the charges made were not facts. but conclusions of law; that the commerce charged was not irl- terstate or foreign commerce, and that, even if 1t were interstate commerce, the facts given constitute no violation of law
 i He said that an injunction had been lsprayed for and secured from the United States circuit court for the northern ! district of Illinois, under the Sherman l6anti-trust act and, quoting the decree
 of the court making permanent the in- Junction, MT. Miller said it merely add I ed the prohibition of the court to that l@of congress, leaving the packers to as- I certain whether individual acts Wo21iI I be in contempt of the courts orde l. contended that the case presened aIlY
 interference i'll business such as never before had been undertaken. The
 charges. he said, were of the most gen
 eral character and did not specify time and place. He did not believe, there- sfore, that the charges could stand atA
 all, as he quoted the indictments in tn " I Whiskey cases to show that charged much more specific than were
 made were considered insufficieQt ii
 It is alleged interrupted Justice
 White, that your clients agents com
 bined to refrain from bidding in order \ to put prices down, and again agreed to
 put them up. Do you think there should
 have been a Specification of hour and
 place ?,'
 Yes your honor responded Mi. x Miller.
 If the government had these facts
 why should it not have given them q
 Did you ask for g bill Of particu- . lars?" inquired Justice Harlan, and MT. l Miller replied in the negative. saying N that the defendants had aled a lI Ter in the case. ,II MT. Miller contended that tlerd N no interstate commerce involved,
 cause the business of the packersI
 cluding the purchase of cattle and sale of the meat, was confined entii Z: to Chicago The shipment, he sa was no part of the purchase or sale.
 i Explaining the economic sitlatioN
 MT, Miller said the demand for fresX
 meat was fairly uniform, and, owing t{
 the necessity for maintaining d propeiY f supply of an acceptable article. thereN < should be some understanding alnongN l the packers. This is, he said, perfectly ,i legitimate. and the government itself x might properly assume this supervision X. The cattle supply was not so regular al !, the demand, and to this fact MT. Miller .l attributed the 1uctuation in prices. $ When MT. Miller concluded Attorney.
 General Moody began. It was idle, ha said, to discuss the contention that the } Icharges of the bill were not connected :. one with another. Be that, he added ,. as 1t might the purpose of the suit was j. single and all the separate parts of tN | bill were interdependent for the accons ; plishment of that end. He also main l tained the constitutionality of the pros .l vision of the bill asking for discovery x of the books of the packers.
 MT. Moody had scarcely begun Wf1en
 the court adjourned until Monday. I At the beginning of Mir. Miller's pre- sentation of the case he was interrupt- . ed by Justice Holmes, who said that he was the holder offstock in the old Union Stock Yards in Chicago and also in the ' Kansas City yards and inquired If they IWere involved in the case. Mr. Miller replied that they were not.