Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-30
AGAINST BEEF TRUST
Decision of the United States
Supreme Court.
OPIN ION UNANIMOUS
STATEMENT OF ITS EFFECT BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Conspiracy Among the Packers to Fir
Prices on Fresh Meats Was
Charged-Effect Of Ruling.

The United States government to-
day won its fight against the beef
trust The Supreme Court handed
down a decision affirming the de-
cision OF Judge Grosscup OF Chi
cago, granting an injunction against
the packers and others engaged n
the meat business and commonly
known as the beef trust. The de-
cision of the court was unanimous.
The Attorney General declined 70
say to an Evening Star reporter
whether criminal prosecutions would
follow today's decision.
There was full attendance OF the court.
with the exception of Mr.. Justice Nhte
The Attorney General. the solicitor general
and other officials of the Department OF
Justice were in their places at the bar, anu
the court room filed with prominent
attorneys Mr. Justice Holmes handed down
the decision of the court in the case OF the
United States VS.. Swift & Co., charging
conspiracy among the packers to fix prices
on fresh meats, etc. 1t is very long doc
ument and goes at length into the questions
in the celebrated litigation. The decision
of the lower court Is affirmed, with some
slight notifications, which are said to be
entirely inconsequential.
Effect of the Decision.
Attorney General Moody was seen by
Star reporter after the session of the court.
and was asked to give expression of views
upon the decision. The Attorney General
was exceedingly loath to talk about the de-
cision, but recognizing the interest of the
public consented TO outline its effect. At
torney General Moody said in substance.
that the injunction accomplishes the fol-
lowing objects:
First 1t prohibits the continuance of
combination to suppress competition in the
purchase of cattle for slaughter rms
branch of the injunction will rebound to
the benefit of the cattle men and farmers.
Second. The injunction forbids combIna-
tons to maintain uniform prices in selling
meats. This section of the injunction VIII
more directly affect the consumers.
Third 1t forb.ds combinat tons between
parties to obtain discriminatory rates from
the railroad companies. This branch of the
litigation will be of benefit to the cattle
men and consumers alike.
Attorney General Moody declined posi-
lively to discuss the question whether crim-
inal prosecutions were to follow today
decision
Continuous Offense Proved.
In his opinion JusNce Holmes discussed
at length the various contentious Of the
packers and disposed of them individually.
He admitted that some of the charges were
less specific than desirable. but said this
was necessarily tue on account of the vast
extent of the field covered. He added that
sufficient had been shown to prove contin-
nous offense and an offense of such nature
as to Justify the proceedings.
Summarizing the Bills.
Summarizing the, bills Justice Holmes
said:
1T charges a combination of dominant
proportion of the dealers in fresh meat
throughout the United States not to bid
against each other in the live stock mar
kets, of the different states, to bid up
nrices 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 SNIP
rnents of meat when necessary, to estab-
Ush a uniform rule OF credit TO dealers
and to keep blacklist, to make UNIFORM
and improper charges for carriage ana
finally TO get less than lawful rates from
the railroads to- the exclusion of compeu-
tors ,,- f
referring to the allegation OF lack OF
continuity in the charges, he said:
Whatever may be thougnt coiceIuihs
the proper constructor OF the s'atu'o,
biIl in equity is not to be read and con-
strued as an indictment would nave peeh
road and construed Il hundred years ago,
but it is to be taken TO mean WHAT II
fairly conveys to a dlspassioiiate IeauI
nv a fairly exact use OF EnSiish speech.
rims read this bill seems to US intendeu
to aIlege successive elements oil single
connected scheme -.
He disposed of the charge of multi
fariousness'' in the following language;
The scheme as a whole seems TO US 10
he within reach of the law. The con-
stituent elements. as we nave stated stated
them are enough to give to the scheme
a body and.p for all that we can say, 10
accomplish it. Moreover. whatever we
may think of them separately when we
take them up as distinct charges, they
are alleged sufficiently as elements of the
scheme 1t is suggested that the several
acts charged are lawful and that intent
can make no dinerehce- but they aie
bound together as the parts of single
plan. The plan may make the parts uii-
lawful Intent is almost essentiai TO such
a combination and is essential TO such an
attempt Where acts are not SuHlcient IN
themselves to produce result which the
law seeks to prevent-for instance, the
monopo1y-but require further acts IN
addition to the mere forces OF nature to
bring that result to pass, an intent to
bring 1t to pass is necessary in order To
produce a dangerous probability that it
will happen.
He also said:
The Alleged Combination.
.sThe combination alleged embraces re-
straint and monopoly Of trade within sin
gle state, although its effect upon COM
merce among the states, is not accident
secondary, remote or merely probable
Speaking further on the question of IN
reference with interstate commerce. JUS
tice Holmes said that a charge was made
of a combination of Independent dealers to
restrict the competition of their agents
when purchasing stock for them IN the
stock yards. 1.-THE purchasers and their
slaughtering establishments are,' he said,
largely in different states from those Of
the stock yards and the sellers of the cat
tie. perhaps 1t Is not too much to assume,
largely in different states from either The
intent of the combination Is not merely to
restrict competition among the parties, but.
as we have said, by force of the general
allegation at The end of the BILL to aid In