The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-01-07
BEEF TRUST CASE UP
ATTORNEY FOR PACKERS MAKES
 HIS ARGUMENT.
Justice Holmes Holds Stock In Con- cerns Which Are Not Interested
 ta the Cause nt Issue.

Washington, Jan. 6.--Argumonts in the case of Swift and Company against the United States. known as the beef trust conspiracy case, was begun be- fore the Supreme Court of the United States today by Attorney John s. Miller of Chicago in behalf of the packers. He attacked the bill of the government as insufficient in its failure to allege facts necessary to constitute a cause of action and said that the charges made are not facts, but conclusions of law; that the commerce charged is not interstate or foreign commerce and that even if 1t be interstate commerce the facts given constitute no violation of law.
 He said that an injunction had been prayed for and secured from the United States Circuit Court of the district of Illinois under the Sherman antitrust act and, quoting the decree of the court, making permanent the injunc- tion, MT. Miller said 1t merely adds the prohibition of the court to that of Con- gress. leaving the packers to ascertain whether individual acts will be in con tempt of the courts order.
 He contended that the case presents an interference in business, such as never before has been undertaken. The charges. he said. arc of the most gen. eral character and do not specify time and place. He did not believe, there- fore, that the charges could stand at all and he quoted the indictments in the whiskey cases to show that charges much more specific than are here made were considered insufficient Tt Is alleged" interrupted Justice White. that your clients agents com bined to ref~ais from bidding in order to put prices down. and again agreed to put them up; do you think there should have been specification of hour and placer"
 Yes, your nonor,' responoed MT. Miller. If the governmeht had these facts why should 1t not have given them?"
 Did you ask for a bill of particu larsT' inquired Justice Harlan. and MT. Miller replied in the negative, saying that the defendants had filed a demur- Ter in the case.
 Mir. Miller said that if the packing industry could be interfered with as proposed in this case the manufactur- ing industries could be similarly regu- lated. and thus you will find" he ad- ded. "the Federal courts regulating n consideral part of the commerce of the country.
 He contended that there is no inter state commerce involved because or the business of the packers. including the purchase of cattle and the sale of the meat. Is confined entirely to Chica- go. The shipment, he said, is no part of the purchase or sale.
 Explaining the economic situation, Mir. Miller said the demapd for fresh meat is fairly uniform and. owing to the necessity for maintaining a proper supply of an acceptable article, he said there should be some understanding among the packers. This Is, he said, perfectly legitimate and the govern ment isself might properly assume this supervision. The cattle supply Is not so regular as the demand, and to this fact Mir. Miller attributed the fiuctuation in prices.
 When MT. Miller concluded, Attorney General Moody began. It was Idle, he said, to discuss the contention that the charges of the bill are not con- nected one with the other. Be that. he aded. as 1t may, the purpose of the suit is single and all the separate parts are interdependent for the &C., complement of that end. He also maintained the constitutionality of the provision of the bill asking for dis covery of the books of the packers.
 MT. Moody had scarcely begun when the court adjourned until Monday.
 At the beginning of MT. Mlllers pre- sentation of the case, he was interrupt ed by Justice Holmes, who said that he is the holder of stock in the old Union Stock Yards in Chicago and also the Kansas City yards. and inquired If they were involved in the case.
 MT. Miller replied that they were not.