The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-31


,,nn Of The sherman Antitrust Law.
U,spiyjros. Jan. 30. The so called Beef
-, WIS to-day held By the United States
e,,,rcrie Court TO he a combination in re-
,.r,,nt If trade and commerce in violation
st,be sherman Antitrust law, and the in
;rnr,lon .s-ued last spring by Judge Peter
Cro-scup Of Chicago, TO restrain It's
.,orIsr- from conspring TO depress the
nTics of ca,to and to raise the price OF
J-,ssrJ leef was affirmed, with some
T,Lt notifications to render i; uone SPY
dhc
The opniou of the court delivered by
" 1rsfieo Holmes. was unanimous. After
,ot,jnc forth the various charges contained
q, ,b- original bin Of complaint filed by
,be Government and the general objection
r,i-ad hv the defendants that II did not
a., forth sufficient or specific facts, Justice
Eoliae. said that the objection was seri-
~ b.t IL seemed to the court inherent in
,tor,,,,r,. Of the case. II continues
Tine statute gives this proceeding against
combinations IN restraint of commerce
,rong the States and against attempts
N rponopolize the same. Intent is almost
essential 10 such combination and is es-
No, sufficient in themselves TO produce a
,,.ul- which the law seeks to prevent
n, instance. the monopoly-but require
further acts IN addition to the mere forces
NJ nature 10 bring that result 70 pass, an
intent 10 bring II to pass is necessary in
order IA produce a dangerous probability
that it wi happen. But when that intent
and the consequent dangerous probability
,risr Ibis statute. like many others, and
Ike the common law in some cases. di-
reefs itself against the dangerous ptoba-
bu,v as well as against the completed
result. What We have said dispoees in
clientally Of the objection to the bill as
uultilaiious The unity Of the plan EN-
braces all the parts.
One further observation should be made
Although the combination alleged EN-
braces restraint and monopoly Of trade
within a single State its effect upon COM
merce among the States is not accidental,
secondary remote or merely probable
On the allegations of the bill the latter
commerce no less, perhaps even more.
thin commerce within a single State. Is an
object Of attack Moreover, ii Is a direct
object II is that for the sake of which the
several specific acts and courses Of conduct
Are done and adopted.
Therefore the case Is not like United
States vs. +. c. Knight company, where the
subject matter of the combination was
manufacture and the direct object monop-
oily Of manufacture within state. How
ever likely monopoly of commerce among
the States in the article manufactured
was 10 follow from tbs agreement, 1t was
no, q necessary consequence nor pri-
mary end Here the subject matter Is
sales and the very point Of the combination
is 10 restrain and monopoze commerce
among the States IN respect oil such sales.
For the foregoing r, asons we are OF
opinion that the carrying out of the scheme
ale ged by the means set forth, properly
NAV b. cnjoined, and that the bill cannot be
dismissed
We pass now 70 the particulars and
will consider the corresponding parts OF
'he hjunction at the same time The
6ysf question arises on the sixth section
Tire section charges a combination OF
independent dealers to restrict the competi-
iion u their a gent when puro haeing stock
Tor them in the stock yards The purchasers
and their Strengthening establishments are
largely In different States from tho e OF
tie stock Yards and the sellers Of the cattle
perhars II ia not TOO much 10 assume lafg ~
In dfieren, States from either The intent
Of the combination is not merely 10 restrict
competition among the parties but, as we
have said By force of the general allegation
at the end Of tie bill, TO aid in an attempt
10 Fftpr0 pOlZs C1IllltlrTCt dIIlOUR lIlt SbdIth
Il is said that this charge is too vague and
that II does not st forth case of commerce
among the states
Taking up the latter objection first.
commerce among the States is not "A tech
meal legal conception but n practical one
drawn from the course OF business. When
cattle are sent for sale from a place in one
State. with the expectation that they will
end their transit after purchase. in another.
and when N effect they do 20, with only the
interruption necessary 10 find purchaser
Al the stock yards. and when this is typical.
constantly recurring course, the current
thus existing 10 q current Of commerce
among the States. and the purchase Of the
cattle is . part and incident of such com
merce
What We say is true at least Of such
purchase by residents in another State
tr:m that Of the seller and Of the cattle.
Aud we need NOT trouble ourselves ar this
tine as 70 whether the statute could be
sscapa5 by any arrangement az to the
nsce where the sale, In point OF law, Is
ool.-lmmated
The Injunction against taking part in
combination, the effect Of which will be
restraint OF trade among the States
BY directing the defendants again TO re-
traln from bidding against one another at
sales uf live stock, Is lust.f ID so far as tho
SUI iect matter is concerned.
Tbs general words Of the injunction
or by any other method or device the pur-
pose and effect Of which is 20 restrain COM
nero as aforesaid. should be stricken out.
The defendants ought to be informed az
accurately As the case permits what they
are forbidden 10 do Specific devices are
mertioued in the bill. and they stand pro-
hihte1 The words quoted are a sweeping
injunction 10 obey the law. and are open to
ne objection which IL Is our duty TO avoid
BE- acts charged in the tenth section.
trart from the combination and the intent.
may porhan> not necessarily be unlawful
except for the adjective which pIoclams
Nein 50 A. I"hst We may assume. for pur-
poses n decision. that they are not unlaw-
lQl The defendants seve-ally lawfully may
obtain .'s- than the regular rates for trans
pFtation n the circumstances are not sub
tNhiialy similar 10 those for which the reGl-
Yer rates are f1ad
II may b that regular rates are fixed
Ior carriage IN cars furnished by the railroad
o'lnpanies and that the defendants furnish
Aer own cars and other necessities OF
ualsportstou We see nothing 70 hinder
mem from combining 20 chat end. We
tgree mat such a combination may be I'M
,aWu A. part Of the general scheme set
!ITta ~ The bill. and that this scheme as
SL5.s iHght he enioined
neither this n ticular combination
oen os ooloined. as IL is. apart from it's
connection with the other elements, II
tlered INTO with the intent to monopo-
q d.. u