The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1905-02-03
THE BEEF TRUST DOWNED
Supreme cOurt Upholds Injunction Grant
ed in the Lower Courts.
PACKERS COMBINE DECLARED ILLEGAL
Option Declares Conpiracy to Fix Prices
Was Proved Sherman Antitrust Law
Has Been violated-lnter.State Trade Al
fected-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes De-
livers Opinion for Tribunal.

Washington, D. c. (Specia) The
Supreme Court of the United States
decided the case of the United States
VS.. Swift & Co., known as the Beef
Trust case, charging conspiracy among
the packers to fix prices on fresh meats,
etc.
The injunction, which was upheld,
was granted in Chicago in 1908 by
United States Judge Grosscup. The
Government instituted the case through
District. Attorney Bethea of Chicago
When the packers took all appeal At
torney General Moody appeared for the
Government in the arguments. This
was in December last
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 contentious
of the packers, and disposed of them
individually. He admitted that some
of the charges were less specific than
desirable. Out Sdlu Ills WdS iiSSSSShiiiy
true on account OF the vast extent OF the
field covered. He added that sufficient
cause had been shown to prove contin-
uous offense, and an offense of such
nature as to justify the proceeding.
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:
"It charges combination OF domi-
nant 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;
TO bid up prices for few days, i'll order
to induce the cattlemen to send their
stock to the stockyards; to fix prices at
which they will sell, and to that end to
restrict shipments of meat when 1eces-
sary to establish uniform rule OF
credit to dealers; to keep blast 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"
Referring to the allegation OF lack OF
continuity in the charges, he SAID:
whatever may be thought concern
ing the proper construction OF the stat
ute, bill in equity is not to be read
and construed as all indictment would
have been read and construed hun
dred years ago, but it is to be taken to
mean what it fairly conveys to dispas-
sionate reader by fairly exact use OF
English speech. Thus read, this bill
seems to us intended TO allege success
sive elements OF single connected
scheme"
He disposed OF the charge OF multi
fariousness" in the following language:
"The scheme as a whole seems to US
to be within reach of the law. The
constituent elements, as we have stated
them, are enough to give to the scheme
a body, and, for all that we can say, to
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 difference. But they
are bound together as the parts OF
single plan. The plan may make the
parts unlawful.
Intent is almost essential to such
combination, and is essential to such an
attempt Where acts are not sufficient
in themselves to produce result which
the law seeks to prevention instance,
the monopoly-but require further acts
in addition to the mere force of nature
to bring the result to pass, an intent to
bring to pass is necessary in order to
produce dangerous probability that it
will happen"