Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-09

not universally have by the great mass of
authorities been held to be against public
| policy, and unlawful in the sense of being
| unenforcible between the parties. 1 must
&C neede that the courts have not always
made the distinction which 1 am endeavor-
| ing to present to your honors. but it ex-
| lists in the nature of things, and the neg
| lect to observe it has led, make bold to
| say, to some confusion of thought"
After citing long list of decisions, in
Guiding those in the Addyston Pipe and
| Northern Securities cases, Mr.. Moody said:
In Restraint of Commerce
Il conclude, therefore. that the agree
| ment disclosed in the sixth paragraph of
| the petition to- suppress all competition
| among the parties to it in the purchase Of
| live stock so situated as to be the subject
| OF interstate commerce. is within the mean
1 ing of the act and in restraint of COM
| merce. because in the words of this court
| In the Northern Securities case. to destroy
| or restrict FIRE, competition in interstate
| commerce is to restrain such commerce"
| The second main subject of agreement,
| he said, is that alleged in paragraph eight,
| SAYING: 1T appears from that paragraph
| that the defendants have combined and
| conspred arbitrarily to raise lower and
| fix prices of fresh meat and to keep them
| uniform as among themselves
| This conspiracy is rendered effective by
| periodical secret meetings throughout the
| country by the agents and attorneys Of the
J defendants. At these meetings uniform
| prices are agreed upon, due notice is given
| of the prices so agreed upon, and the de-
! PENDANTS adhere to the prices thus fixed.
| nat Such an agreement relates to and re-
| strains commerce. according to the we'll
| settled rule of this country, is so plain that
| L cannot permit myself to argue it. The
l only possible question that ought to be no.
! ticed is whether the commerce which it re-
| strains is commerce among the states and
| therefore within the power of Congress and
1 the purview of the act"
| In closing Mr.. Moody said:
| Ihese are the main subjects of the un-
lawful conspiracy among the defendants.
| Others set forth in the petition. the
| purpose of which is to make more effective
| the main conspiracy and render it less easy
| Ior the defendants themselves to escape
from the performance of the unlawful con-
| spiracy which they have formed | will
| consider these subsidiary agreements
Alleged Tricks of the Combine
First In the seventh paragraph of the
| petition it appears that the defendants have
| agreed upon this device: In pursuance of the
conspiracy among themselves their agents
| Did up the price of live stock at certain Sc
| iected times to abnormal point This
| naturally induces the shipment from other
| states OF live stock to the points where the
| price Is bid up in quantities much larger
thah under normal conditions. Then, tax
| ing advantage of this congestion of the
| market, they refrain from bidding against
! edch other in the purchase of live stock
with the result that the producers and own
| ers OF the stock are forced to sell at ruin
| Gus prices. Thus the unlawful consniracv
| 10 refrain from bidding against each other
| Is made doubly profitable and the great
| pronts which come from the transaction in
| turn increase the power of the combina tion
! and tend to fasten upon the people mo-
| hopoiy. The conspiracy in this case is an
| Sniary 10 the conspiracy to refrain from
| uiuuins ana TO the creation of the mo-
W hn11
| Second. 1t is alleged in the eighth nara
| gfaph that for the purpose of aiding in the
| raising, lowering, fixing and maintaining of
ni,.aorni pslces Tor fresh meat, the defend
at.s coHuslVely restricted and curtailed
shipments of meats to the various markets
| throughout the country. The word colin
siveiyi W, fairly Interpreted, means that they
| eaet, n,h shipments by agreement with
| sometimes may be entirely legitimate This
| CONSIDERATION is recognized In the decree
wHich eXempts from its prohibition the cur
| failing of shipments made in good fai+h ~
| prevent the congestion of the mar,,et ~
| Ih'fa. In paragraph eight penalties are
aapossu I'M s aga,hst each other by the defend
ANS l: lor an deviations from the prices fixed.
WHICH needs no special comment
| Giving Of Credits.
| fourth- In paragraph eight, also. uni-
form rules for the giving of credits arc
| agreed upon. This of itself might be harm
less, put It's purpose is ancillary to the
| main conspiracy stated in that pa ra granb
| namely, the suppression of all comnetition
| among the defendants. They will NOT
| ailow themselves even to compete for
| tne term OF credit which may be given to
,helr respective customers. No purchaser
| may go from one to another of these 10
| PENDANTS and obtain the advantage of a
| single days delay in the shinment of 80;
| bill. VI MS
| Fifth. The same purpose is behind the
| agreement alleged in the ninth paragraph
| OF the petition. to make and impose uni
| form charges for carriage. The price of
| the meat is uniform; the terms of credit
| are uniform even the rates of carriage are
] uniform. and all this comes about by the
| agreement of the parties and is designed
| in the most effective way to prohibit in
| the minutest detail all possible competi-
| ton in prices
| II have now discussed separately all
| the agreements and acts of the defendants
| which were complained of as unlawful in
the petition and enjoined by the decree of
| the court below. I have endeavored to
show, with respect to each of them that
| they relate to interstate commerce and
| either restrained it or monopolized it with
! in the meaning of the law. 1 should be
| There is larger view of it to be taken
| than appears from the allegations in the
| petition considered separately.
Acts of Interstate Commerce.
These defendants are engaged in inter-
state commerce. The petition shows q
| typical case of interstate commerce. If the
! business which they do exclusive of manu-
| facture, is not interstate commerce. there
| can be no such thing outside of transporta-
| ton. They buy their raw material which
\ is gathered together from all the cattle
raising states and territories of the Union
| and sent to the great livestock markets
1 of the country. After they have trans
| formed that material into the finished prod
| uct. they sell it throughout the United
| States. The combination which they have
| entered into is designed to restrain all their
| business transactions, exclusive of manu-
! facture. by the suppression of all cOmpeti-
| ton therein, both in their purchases and
| their sales. by the fixing and maintaining
| of uniform prices for their product and. so
| far possible, uniform prices for their
| raw material and by obtaining such un-
lawful advantages as tend to create a mo-
nopoly in necessity of life.
They cannot be permitted ingeniously to
| separate the various steps of their under
| taking and SO deal with them that they can
| be regarded as interstate transactions. The
court met and answered such a device as
this in the case of Montague & Co. VS.
Lowry. 1913 U. s., 3S. There it was truly
claimed that the sales of unset tiles in San
Francisco by the local dealers were con-
sidered by themselves interstate transac-
| tions. The court held that that sale could
| not be separated from the main n,,rnoco of