The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1905-02-02
AGAINST BEEF TRUST
Supreme Court Sustains Contention
of Conspiracy to Raise Prices.
CONTINUOUS oFFENsE PROVEN
The Opinion, concurred In BY All
Members of the Court, Continues the
Injunction Granted Against the
Packers Under Antitrust Law.

Washington. Jan. 3l.-The supreme
tourt OF the United States decided the
tase Of the United States versus Swift
& Co. known as the beef trust case
charging conspiracy among the pack
ers to 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. He admitted that
some OF the charges were less speclhc
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 nature as 10 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.
ut 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 10
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.
ct 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 10
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 ii
TO pass is necessary in order to pro
duce a dangerous probability that it
will happen"
He also said: "The combination al
legged embraces restraint and monop-
oily of trade within a single state, al
though its effect upon commerce
among the states, is not accident sec
ondafy. fsssfa5tss % o. merely probable S.
Speaking further on the question Of
interference with interstate com
merce. Justice Holmes said that
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 1t 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
ia 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
10 find a purchaser. at the stock yards,
and when this is typical, constantly
recurring course, the current thus ex-
laflne Is a current OF commerce among
the states. and the purchase Of the
cattle Il . part and incident Of such
commerce"