New-York tribune., 1905-01-31
BEEF TRUST DESTROYED
Continued from first page.

IA dnaily, 10 get less than lawful rates from
The railroads. TO the exclusion OF competitors.
Referring to the allegation OF laok Of continu-
..v IN the charges. he said:
whatever may be thought concerning the
,-nper construction OF the statute a bill In
s1uity is not 10 be read and construed as an in
ssssctr;ent would have been read and construed
= hundred years ago. but it IS taken to mean
-.bst II fairly conveys TO a dispassionate reader
~ q fairly exact use OF English speech. Thus
I'D this bin seems TO intended to allege
srecessiye elements Of a single connected
scheme
y. disposed Of the charges Of "muitfarious-
ass" in the following language:
ybe scheme. as a whole. seems TO us to be
within reach Of the law. The constituent ele-
,,sDrs as we have stated them, are enough to
I've 10 the scheme body, and, for all that we
- saw 10 accomplish It. Moreover whatever
e nav think Of them separately when we take
49, M as distinct charges they are alleged
s-F3cfently as elements Of the scheme 1t is
srgcestsd that the several acts charged are law
a. and that intent can make no difference; but
tbev are bound together as the parts Of a single
Ier The plan may make the parts unla wful
TErfent is almost essential to such combina-
-1on and is essential 10 such an attempt Where
ec+s are not sufficient IN themselves TO produce
q result which the law seeks TO prevention in
stsoce the monopoly-but require further acts
tbe result to pass, an intent to bring it to pass
e necessary in order 10 produce O. dangerous
probability that IL will happen.
TIe also said:
--ba combination alleged embraces restraint
and monopoly Of trade within a single State. al
tSo1gb its effect upon commerce among the
stefes IS not accident, secondary, remote or
merely probaoie'
CLEARLY INTERSTATE COMMERCE..
spsakfng further on the question OF interfer-
snoe with interstate commerce, Justice Holmes
ssjd that charge was made OF a combination
~ independent dealers to restrict the competi-
ton Of their agents when purchasing stock for
theul in the stoclJyards.
THE purchasers and their slaughtering estab-
ushments are." he said, largely in different
States from those Of the stockyards. and the
sellers OF the cattle. perhaps IT IS not too much
70 assume largely IN different States from
either The intent Of the combination is not
merely TO restrict competition among the par
ties but, as we have said, by force OF the
general allegation at the end Of the bill. to
aid IN an attempt TO monopolize commerce
anong the States" he added:
When cattle are sent for sele from a place in
ons State with the expectation that they VIII
and their transit. after purchase in another. and
when in effect they DO so. with only the in
terruption necessary TO find q purchaser at the
stockyards. and when this is a typical.
SANITY recurring course. the current thus eX-
3stng is a current Of commerce among the
States. and the purchase Of the cattle is part
end Incident OF Such commerce.
With reference 10 the allegation that no in-
ts-state commerce is involved In the sale OF
meats by the packers, the opinion says:
The allegations Of the second section, even II
they import a technical passing OF title at the
EsughJering places, also import that the sales
ere 10 persons in other States, and that the
shipments to other States art part Of the trans
acton-"pursuant to such sales'-and the third
section imports that the same things which
are sent 20 agents are sold by them and sufi-
gFlY7 41,1A ~ oct 90 4ha
sales are Of the original packages. Moreover,
The sales are by persons in one State to persons
n another. But we do not mean to imply that
the rule which marks the point at which State
taxation or regulation becomes permissible nee
essarily is beyond the scope Of interference by
Congress IN cases where such Interference IS
deemed Necessary for the protection OF cournrce
among the States. Nor do we mean 10 intimate
that the statute under consideration Is limited
70 that point
After referring IN detail 10 the various objeo-
tons 10 the original bill OF complaint, and dis
posing Of all of them insufficient Justice
Holmes said:
The defendants cannot be ordered TO compete,
but they properly can be forbidden to give d.
Tecuons OF 10 make agreements not to compete.
INJUNCTION MADE MORE SPECIFIC.
Notifications OF the injunction were suggested
follows:
The general words OF the Injunction. "or by
any other method or device the purpose and
Suect OF which Is 10 restrain commerce, as
aforesaid" should be stricken out. The de-
PENDANTS ought 10 be informed as accurately as
me case permits what they are forbidden to do.
SPECIFIC devices are mentioned IN the bill, and
they stand prohibited. The words quoted are 4
sweeping injunction TO obey the law, and are
open 10 the objection which we stated at the
beginning that il was our duty to avoid. To
The same end OF definition as far as obtainable
ne words as charged in the bill" should be in
serted between dealers in such meats and
the effect Of which sales: and two lines lower,
as 10 charges for carriage, the same words
should. be inserted between dealers and con-
sumers" and the effect Of which"
NO objection made on the ground that II
not confined TO the places specified in the
MA II seems 10 US however, that il ought to
SCI forth more exactly the transactions in
which such directions and agreements are for
boden. The trade IN fresh meat referred to
shoUld be defined somewhat as il is IN the bill,
ana The sales Of stock should be confined 10
HIes OF stock at the stockyards named which
STOCK is sent from other States to the stock
yards for sale or is bought at these yards for
transport 10 another State.