The San Francisco call., 1905-01-31

w mere dclS are not SuIHclenL IN Lneln-
selves to produce a result which the
law seeks to prevention instance, the
monopoly-but require further 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 dangerous probability that
it will happen"
TRAFFIC is INTERSTATE. =.
He also said:
The commission alleged embraces
restraint and monopoly of trade within
single State, although it's effect upon
commerce among the States is not ac-
cident, secondary. remote or merely
probable"
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
! the agents who purchase stock for
them in the stock yards.
The purchasers and their slaughter
Ing establishments are" he said,
largely in different States from those
or the stock yards, and the sellers of
the cattle, perhaps it is not too much
to assume, largely in different States
from either. The intent of the COM
bination is not merely to restrict COM
petition among the parties, but, as we
have said, by force of the general al
legation at the end of the bill, to aid
in an attempt to monopolize commerce
among States.
When cattle are sent for sale from
place in one State with the ex-
pectation that they will end their tran
sit after purchase in another, and
when in effect they do so. with the only
interruption necessary. being to find a
purchaser at the stock yards, and when
this is a typical, constantly recurring
course, the current thus existing is a
current OF commerce among the States,
and the purchase of the cattle is a part
and incident Of such commerce"
With reference to the allegation that
no interstate commerce is involved In
the sale OF meats by the packers. JUS
uce Holmes said:
MAY PROHIBIT POOLING.
The allegations of the second sec
tion. even if they import a. technical
passage OF, title at the slaughtering-
houses, also import that the sale to
persons in other States and also that
the shipments to other States are part
OF the ransaction-'pursuant to such
sales'-and the third section imports
that the same things which are sent to
agents are sold by them, and sufficient
ly indicates that some, at least, of the
sales are Of the original packages
| Moreover the sales are by persons in
one state to persons in another. But
| we DO not mean to imply that the rule
| Wnich marks the point at which State
taxation or regulation becomes permis-
s1Dle necessarily Is beyond the scope
or interference by Congress In cases
where such interference Is deemed
necessary for the protection of com
merce among the States. Nor do we
mean to intimate that the statute un-
! der consideration is limited to that
| point"
After referring in detail to the OBJ
Jectfons to the original bill of COM
plant and disposing Of all Of them as
insufficient, Justice Holmes said:
| Inc defendants cannot be ordered
TO compete, but they properly can be
| forbidden to give directions or to make
agreements not to compete"
| Suggestions looking to the modifica-
ton OF the. injunction were made as
follows:
| mo objection was made on the
| ground that 1t is not confined to the
places specified in the BILL 1t seems to
US, however, that 1t ought to set forth
more exactly the transactions on which
forbidden. The trade in fresh meat
referred to should be defined somewhat
as 1t is in the bill, and the sales of
stock should be confined to sales of
stock at the stockyards or that bought
at these yards for transport to another
| State"
MOODY SPEAKS OF RULING.
In speaking Of the Supreme Court
decision to-day Attorney General
Moody said:
IT was present in court when a
synopsis of the decision was stated
orally by Justice Holmes. There ia
no improperly in my saying that, as
understand that statement. the opin-
ion sustains In all respects the conten-
ton OF the Government and affirms
the decree Of the court below in all sub
stantial particulars. The case decides
that the traffic in livestock transported
from the State or Territory of it's origin
TO another State for sale and held there
for sale is interstate commerce and
that those engaged In buying and SELL
ing such livestock are engaged in inter-
state commerce. This question has
been before the court twice before. but
was left undecided because the cases
in which it was presented turned upon
other considerations.
The decision condemns as an m
lawful restraint of trade the combina-
tion between independent dealers ia
:. suppress all competition in the pur-
chase OF livestock thus situated. II
| condemns as an unlawful restraint of
trade the combination between such
dealers for the purpose of fixing and
maintaining uniform prices in the sale
OF meat throughout the country. If
condemns as an unlawful restraint of
trade the combination between such
dealers to obtain preferential rates for
the transportation of their product by
common carriers The decision makes
1t clear that all combinations between
independent individuals. partnerships
or corporations engaged in Interstate
i commerce by which competition be-
1 tween them on sudh commerce is sup
pressed fall under the prohibition of
the so-called antitrust act"
The Attorney General declined to say