Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-01-30
I. S Supreme Court Afiirms the
Decision OF the Court
Below.
THAT WAS AGAINST PACKERS.
Opinion by Mr. Justice Holmes. Con-
CURED In by All the Judges
Injunction Continued.

Washington, Jan. 3O--The supreme
court OF the United States today de-
clded the case OF the United States VS.
Swift 81 Co.. known as the beef trust
case, charging conspiracy among the
packers to fix prices on fresh meats,
etc, The opinion was handed down
by Justice 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-
tions OF the packers and disposed OF
them individually, lie admitted that
some Of the charges were less specific
than desirable, but said this was nee
essarily true on account Of the vast ex-
tent OF the field covered He added
that sufficient evidence had been shown
TO prove continuous offenses. and an
offense Of such a nature TO justify the
proceedings. The opinion continues
the injunction granted against the
packers under the Sherman antitrust
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 n combination Of DOM
inant proportion of the dealers In fresh
meat throughout the United States not
TO bid against each other In the live
stock markets Of the different states 10
bid up prices for few days in order
to induce the catlemen TO send their
stock to the stock yards; to TX prices
at which they will sell and to that
end TO restrict shipments OF meat when
necessary; TO establish a uniform rule
of credit to dealers and to keep black
list; 20 make uniform and improper
charges for carriage aud finally. to get
less than lawful rates from the rail-
roads 10 the exclusion OF competitors"
Referring 10 the allegation of lack Of
continuity I'm the charges, he said;
Whatever may be thought concern
ing the proper construction OF the stat
ute a bill IN equity is not to be read
and construed as m indictment would
have been read and construed 100 years
ago, but Il ls to be taken to mean
what 1t fairly conveys to a dispassion-
ate reader by a fairly exact use Of
English speech, Thus read the bin
seems to US intended TO allege success
slye elments Of a single connected
scheme"
He disposed of the charge OF multi
fariousness' In the following language:
The scheme as q whole seems to us
to be within reach of the law. The con-
stituent elements, as we have stated
them, are enough TO give TO the scheme
a body, and for all that we can say, to
accomplish e., Moreover, whatever we
may think Of them separately when We
take them up as distinct charges they
are alleged ms elements of the scheme.
II Is suggested that the several acts
charged are lawful, and that intent
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 essential to
such convention and is essential 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 I'm addition to the mere
forces Of nature TO bring that result 10
pass, an intent 20 bring TO pass ia
necessary in order to produce a dan
gerous probability that II Will happen"
lie also said.
"The commission alleged embraces
restraint and monopoly of trade with
in single state. although its effect
upon commerce among the states, Is
not accident, secondary, remote OF
merely probable
Speaking further on the question Of
interference with interstate commerce,
Justice Holmes said that a charge was
made OF n combination Of Independent
dealers to restrict the competition Of
the agents, who purchase stock FOR
them in the stockyards
"The purchasers and their slaughter
ing esta blishments are" he said, large.
ly in different states from those Of the
stockyards and the sellers Of the cat
tie, perhaps II is not too much TO as
sumo largely In different states from
either. The Intent of the combination
Is not merely 10 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 an at
tempt TO monopolize commerce among
states"
He added; "When cattle are sent for
sale from n place In one state with the
expectation that they will end their
transit after purchase, IN another, aud
when In effect they do so, with the only
interruption necessary being TO ind
purchaser at the stockyards, and when
this Is a typical, constantly recurring
course, the current thus existing Is
current Of commerce among the states,
and the purchase OF the cattle is a part
and incident Of such commerce"
JUDGE GROssCUP TALKS.
Chicago Jan. 3O.--Judge Peter s.
Grosscup, OF the United states circuit
court, speaking OF the decision, said.
THE decision establishes the right
Of the government TO prevent comblnn-
tons among tho manufacturers OF
meats II fortlhes the Sherman act.
IL is "A long step I'm the direction OF
effectual government supervision. But
TO my mind the real Significance Of the
decision Is much deper and far-reach-
Ing than even this. II effectively clears
the decks of what believe will be the
next really great national movement
as the restriction, and finally the aboll-
ton OF slavery was the last great fund
amental movement--the organization
and supervision, by the nation Itself
Of the great corporations Of the fu-
turel a movement whose chief object
viii be, not so much to control prices
or merely to curb power, as 10 bring
corporate ownership within, the reach
and reasonable confidence OF the people
at large, and thus TO re-peoplelze and
rrpublicanlze again the Industrial own
ershlp Of the country"
Chicago, Jan. 30.--Ofllclals OF Swift a
co. declined to discuss the supreme
court decision. j. Ogden Armour pres
Ilanf NJ Arp,attr q 10 Uaa aanalfu rp-