The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-01-31
BEEF PACKERS
LOSE THEIR CASE
Injunction Made Permanent by the
Supreme Court.
JUSTICE HOLMES OPINION
ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COURT CONQUERED.

~ AoGlNGION, jan 3O.-Ihe Su-
wv preme court of the United States
today decided the case of the
united States VS.. Swift & Co, known
as the beef trust case, charging con-
spiracy among the packers to fix prices
on fresh meats. etc. The opinion was
named down by Justice Holmes and
aHlrmed the decision of the court be-
low which was against the packers
IN MS opinion Justice Holmes dis
cussed at length the various cOnten-
lions or the packers and disposed of
them individually. He admitted that
some or 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 evidence had been
SHOWN to prove continuous offenses
ana ;,i,t an ohense of such nature to
JuStlfy the proceeding. The opinion
continues the injunction granted
against the packers under the Sher-
man antitrust law by the lower courts
me opinion was concurred in by all
the members of the court
Combination Charge Sustained.
said:
1t charges a combination of
dominant proportion of the dealers IN
IIesh meat throughout the United
States not to bid against each other in
the livestock markets of the different
states; TO bid up prices for a few days
IN order TO induce the cattIemen to
SEND their stock to the stock yards: TO
TX prices at which they will sell and
~ lhaJ end to restrict shipments of
meat when necessary; to estab Iisb a
UNIFORM rule of credit to dealers and
10 keep a blacklist; to make uniform
ana improper charges for carriage, and.
nnaIly, to get less than lawful rates
r. < To ha
competitors
Reterring to the allegation of lack
OF continuity in the charges, he said:
w hatever may he thought concern
lIis the proper construction of the
statute Dill in equity is not to be
read and construed as an Indictment
would have been read and construed a
hundred years ago. but it is to be
taken TO mean what it fairly conveys
10 dispassionate reader by a fairly
exact use of English speech. Thus
read the bill seems TO us intended to
dlege successive elements of a single
connected scheme
Answer Disposed Of.
He disposed of the charge of a.nulti-
Iar1Ousness" in the following Iangua &c: |
Inc scheme as a whole seems to US !
10 De within reach of the law. The
constituent elements, as we have stated |
them, are enough to give 10 4 .
q
can say, to accomplish il. Moreover, |
Whatever we may think OF them
separately when we take them m as I
instinct charges they are alleged as |
elements of the scheme. It is sllc- I
Sested that the several acts charged 4
are lawful. and that intent can make /
no difference But they are bound /
together as the parts of a single plan. I
Inc Inc plan may make the parts unlaw-
fuL Intent is almost essential to such n |
and fol
Where acts are not sl1f-
nclent IN themselves to produce a re-
suit which the law seeks TO prevent |
Tor instance, the nonopoly-but re-
, LII TURNER iurther acts In addition to the
mere forces OF nature TO bring that |
result to pass, an intent to bring to
pass Is necessary in order TO produce
a dangerous probability that it will
happen He also said:
Monopoly of Trade.
The commission alleged embraces
restraint and monopoly of trade within
2 single state, although its effect upon
commerce among the states is not ac-
DTOba Bile"
Speaking further on the question of
Interference with Interstate commerce.
Justice Holmes said that a charge was
made OF combination of independent
dealers to restrict the competition of
mem in the stock yards.
The purchasers and their slaughter
nS eSta bltshmentS are" he said. !
largely in different states from those
II the stock yards, and the sellers of
he cattle, perhaps it is not too much
o assume, largely in different states,
rom either The intent of the combi-
Ia ton is not merely to restrict COM
petition among the parties, but, as we
lave said, by force of the general al
a M ha or 4 ,
n an attempt to monOpoIize commerce
lmong states
He added when cattle are sent for
ale from a place in one state. with ,
he expectation that they viii end
helr transit after purchase, in an
'ther, and when in effect they do so, |
With the only interruption necessary | ]
'elng TO find a purchaser at the stock
ards, and when this is typical con-
family recurring course. the current !
hus existing is a current of commerce
mong the states and the purchase of !
he cattle is part and incident of
UGH commerce"
Answer of Packers Important.
With reference TO the allegation that
% interstate commerce is involved INF
he sale of meats by the packers the
pinion says:
The allegations of the second sec
ion, even if they import a technical
etSadSt OF tue at the Slaugh teFing | .
laces, also import that the sales are
D persons in other states, and that the
hipments 10 other states are part of :
he ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS to such
aies'-and the third section imports
hat the same things which are sent to 4
gents are sold by them, and suhici- {
ntly indicates that some. at least. of ]
ne sales are of the original packages
borrower, the sales are by persons i'm | |
ne state to persons in another. But '
e do not mean to imply that the rule I
hich marks the point at which state r
lXation or regulation becomes per | a
lissible necessarily is beyond the
,ope OF interference by congress in | S
ases where such interference is s
eemed necessary for the protection of {
among the states Nor do | b
g mean TO intimate that the statute I
Hder consideration is limited to that Y
pint" j
Objections insufficient. b
After referring in detail 20 the OBJ $
cilcns 10 original bill OF complaint n
nd disposing of all of them as in 3
Justice Holmes said:
The defendants cannot be ordered |
compete, but they properly can be
rbidden TO give directions or to make
sreements not to compete" q
Notifications of the injunction were | c
lgge sted as follows: q