The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1905-03-08
rs HE ANOTHER BALAAM:


Commissioner Gariield's Report ON the
Beef TRISTAN Expected Curse Was
Not Forthcoming.
To the Editor of the Journal and Cour-
Ter:
The present administration some
time since caused to be instituted pro-
ceedings by injunction against the
meat packers of Chicago, to compel
them to observe the law incorrectly
known as the Sherman Antitrust
Act"
OF that law the late Hon. George #.
Hoar, in his memoirs published just
before his death, remarks as follows:
''In 1890 bill was passed, which was
called the Sherman Act for no other
reason that I can think of, except that
Mr.. Sherman had nothing to do with
framing it whatever. He introduced
bill and reported it from the finance
committee, providing that whenever a
trust, as 1t was called, dealt with an
article protected by the tariff, the arti'
Gle should be put on the free list. Mr..
Sherman's bill found little favor with
the senate. 1t was referred to the jul
dietary committee, of which was then
a member. drew, as an amendment,
the present bill, which i presented to
the committee. There was a good deal
of opposition to it in the committee,
Nearly every member had a plan Of
his own. But at last the committee
came to my view and reported the law
of 1890. The House disagreed TO our
bill and the matter went to a confer
ence committee, of which Mr.. Ed
rnunds, the chairman Of the committee,
and I, as the member of the committee,
who was the author of the bill, We're
members. The House finally came to-
our view.
It was expected that the court in adj
ministering the law would confine it's
operation to cases which are contrary
to the policy of the law; treating the
words agreements in restraint of
trade as having technical meaning
such as they are supposed to have in
England. The Supreme Court of the
United States went, in this particular,
further than was expected"
Quite likely, in common with the
conduct of many, if not most other
large business affairs, all the provi4
sions of this act of Congress had not
been observed by the meat packers.
1t is crude legislation-a relic of the
olden times, since when the surround
ings of human life have been revoiu-
tionized. 1t was condemned semi-offi-
cially as unwise by Attorney General
Knox, who instituted these proceed
ings; condemned by Commissioner
Garfield, the head Of the new Depart
ment of Commerce." as unsound in
principle; condemned SCIENTIFICALLY as
unwise by Judge Grosscup, the Federal
judge in Chicago, who heard the case,
though it was his judicial duty to en-
force it; condemned generally by think
ing men, because it interferes with
freedom in business, and makes that a
crime which according to recognized
business usages is not criminal. For
instance, the labor combinations,
which threaten to interfere with inter-
state business, and many of them do
the counter combinations of the EN-.
ployers affecting the same business,
are VIGOROUSLY offences against this
act.
Now cattle were scarce one season.
1902-and the price of beef went up, and
the New York Herald, followed by 9TH
err papers in other cities, let out blasts
of the hottest air against the packers,
claiming that their prices were extor-
tionate-that they controlled the mar
ket-and that they were reaping huge
profits, &C., &C., and very many news
papers were sold. So injunction pro-
ceedings were brought and Commits
sioner Garfield was ordered to investi-
gate. Probably the packers did then
have some agreements with each 9TH
err, which were in conflict with the act.
Whether so or not, they did not care to
give to their competitors the knowl-
edge of the details of their business,
which a public judicial trial would dis
close.
So they !demurred to the bill of in
junction and the demurrer was over
ruled and judgment went against
them, which was affirmed, nisi, by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
That court ruled that the injunction
order was too general-that it should
be made specific, and on it's being
made specific should be entered up as
the judgment of the court.
Any lawyer will at once recognize
the absurdity of the claim that there
could be violation of the original or
der so as to be in contempt of court
while that order was so general that
the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled that it was not enforcea-
BILE. a.
ANY lawyer will at once recognize