Evening journal., 1905-01-31
DECISION AGAINST
THE BEEF TRUST
Supreme Court Sustains Con-
tention Of Conspiracy to
Raise Prices
CONTINUOUS OFFENSt IS PROVED

w uSnlnl lol, Jan. Slime supreme
rourt of the United States decided the
case Of the United States versus Swift
g. Co., known as the beef trust case,
charging conspiracy among the pack
ers 10 fix prices on fresh meats, etc.
The opinion was handed down by JUS
tice Holmes, and affirmed the decision
of the court below, which was against
the packers
In his opinion Justice Holmes dis
cussed at length the various conten-
tons of the packers and disposed Of
them individually lie admitted that
some of the charges were less specific
than desirable but said this was
necessarily true on account of the
vast field covered.
He added that sufficient had been
shown to prove continuous offense and
an offense OF such a nature as to JUS
tify the proceeding. The opinion con-
tinues the injunction granted against
the packers under the Sherman anti
trust law by the lower courts. The
opinion was concurred In by all the
members Of the court.
Summarizing the bills, Justice
Holmes said:
1T charges a combination of a
dominant proportion Of the dealers in
fresh meat throughout the United
States not to bid against each other
in the live stock markets of the diff
ferent states, to bid up prices for a
few days in order to induce the cattle
men to send their stock to the stock
yards, to fix prices at which they will
sell, and to that end to restrict ship
ments of meat when necessary to es-
tablish a uniform rule of credit to
dealers, and to keep a black list, to
make uniform and improper charges
for carriage, and finally TO get less
than lawful rates from the railroads
to the exclusion of competitors.
1T is suggested that the several
acts charged are lawful and that in
tent can make no difference. But they
are bound together as the parts of a
single plan. The plan may make the
parts unlawful. Intent is almost essen
tial to such a combination and is es-
sential to such an attempt Where
acts are not sufficient in themselves to
produce a result which the law seeks
to prevent, for 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 it
TO pass is necessary in order to pro-
duce a dangerous probability that it
will happen"
He also said: THE combination al
ieged embraces restraint and monop-
oily Of trade within a single state, al
though its effect upon commerce
among the states, is not accident, sec
ondary, remote or merely probable"
Speaking further on the question Of
interference with interstate COM
merce. Justice Holmes said that a
charge was made of a combination of
Independent dealers to restrict the
competition of their agents when pur-
chasing stock for them in the stock
yards.
THE purchasers and their slaugh-
tering establishments are" he said.
largely in different states from those
Of 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 10 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 COM
merce among the states"
He added: What cattle are sent for
sale from a place in one state. with
the expectation that they will end
their transit after purchase, in an
other, and when in effect they do so.
with only the interruption necessary
to find a purchaser at the stock yards.
and when this is a typical, constantly
recurring course, the current thus ex-
listing is a current of commerce among
the states. and the purchase of the
cattle is a part and incident Of such
commerce"