Waterbury evening Democrat., 1905-01-09

eral Moody to-day resumed his argu. ment ill behalf of the government be, fore the supreme court of the United States in the case of Swift X Co ys the United States, commonly known as the ''beef trust case" begun last Fri day. Mir Moody said that none of the agreements or acts complained Of re lates to manufacture or production, but to commerce as distinguished from manufacture and production.
 In conclusion Mir Moody said: ''These are the main subjects of the unlawful conspiracy among the de fendants. Others are set forth in the petition, the purpose of which is to make more effective the main conspir- acy and render it less easy for the de- fendants themselves to escape from the performance of the unlawful con spiracy which they have formed. I will now consider these subsidiary agreements.
 First: In the seventh paragraph of the petition. it appears that the de- fendants have agreed upon this de- vice: In pursuance of the conspiracy among themselves their agents bid up the price of livestock at certain select ed times to an abnormal point. This naturally induces the shipment from other states of livestock to the points where the price is bid up in quanti- ties much larger than under normal conditions. Then, taking advantage of this congestion of the markets. they refrain from bidding against each oth- CT in the purchase of livestock. with the result that the producers and owners of the stock are forced to sell at ruinous prices. Thus, the unlawful conspiracy to refrain from bidding against each other is made doubly profitable and the great profits which come from the transaction in turn in. crease the power of the combination and tend to fasten upon the people q monopoly. The conspiracy in this case is ancillary to the conspiracy to refrain from bidding and to the crea. tion of the monopoly which this whole case discloses.
 Second: It is alleged in the eighth paragraph that for the purpose of aid. ing in the raising. lowering. fixing and maintaining of uniform prices for fresh meat, the defendants collusively restricted and curtailed shipments of meats to the various markets through out the country. The word 'collec lively fairly interpreted, means tha, they curtailed shipments by agree ments with each other Doubtless such transaction may sometimes he legitimate. This consideration Is re cognized in the decree. which evempts from its prohibition the curtaling of shipments made in good faith. to pre- vent the congestion of the markets.
 Third: In paragraph eight penal ties are imposed against each other hy defendants for all deviations from the prices fixed. which needs no spe cial comment
 Fourth. in paragraph eight. also uniform rules for the giving of credits are agreed upon. This of itself might be harmless: hut its purpose is ancil lary to the main conspiracy stated ir that paragraph. namely. the suppres sion of all competition among the de fendants. They will not allow them selves even to compete for the tern of credit which may be given to theil respective customers. No purchaser may go from one to another of these defendants and obtain the advantage of a single days delay in the ship ment of his bill
 Eighth: The same purpose is be hind the agreement alleged in tn, ninth paragraph of the petition. |, make and impose uniform charges fo carriage. The price of the meat is uni form: the terms of credit are uniform even the rates of carriage are uniform and all this comes about by the agree ment of the parties and is designed il | the most effective way to prohibit il the minutest detail all possible compe tition in prices.
 ''I have now discussed. separately. al | the agreements and acts of the defend ants which were complained of as un lawful in the petition and enjoined b, l the decree of the court below. 1 hay, endeavored to show, with respect [, each of them, that they relate to inter ! state commerce and either restraine, it or monopolized it within the mean ing of the law. l should be unwilling
 however. to rest the case here. Ther | is larger view of it to b
 taken than that appears from tn
 allegations in the petition considerc,
 separately.
 These defendants are engaged il i interstate commerce.. The petitiol shows typical case of interstate com merce. If the business which they dC | exclusive Of manufacture. is not inter state commerce. there can be no srcl thing outside of transportation. The.
 buy their raw material. which i | gathered together from all the cattl | raising states and territories of tn Union. and sent to the great livestOcl
 markets of the country. After the have transformed that material int
 the finished product. they sell throughout the United States. Th
 combination which they have enter,-
 into is designed to restrain all thei
 business transactions. exclusive c
 manufacture. by the suppression of al competition therein. both in their pun
 chases and their sales. by the fixin and maintaining of uniform prices fo
 their product and so far as possibl.
 uniform prices for their raw material
 and by obtaining such unlawful at
 vantages as tend to create a monopl in a necessity of fife They cannot b
 permitted ingeniously to separate tn
 various steps of their undertaking an
 deal with them that they can be n
 garled as intrastate transactions. Tn i court met and answered such devic
 as this in the case of Montague X con | ..r r | Ar 1frs I-n:rrsi SrafaS q.