New-York tribune., 1905-01-31
AGAINST THE BEEF TRUST.

Tl,era is no risk in saying that millions or per
sons will rejoice in the unanimous decision OF
the Supreme Court of the United states SUD
stantially affirming the decision OF me Ofcul'
Court against Swift & Co. and upholdlng the
Injunction which forbids the Beer Trust 10 con-
tinue the practices complained or In the reso-
luton with which this case has Deeh cohuucteu
in behalf of the government, the people WIZ pe
hold a gratifying proof Of the Presidents noel
ity TO his declared purpose OF enforcing Tue III
terstate Commerce act without fear or iaVor'
and they will not fail to recognize in the result
q confirmation of the original impression that
Attorney General Moody had laid complicated
question before the court with remarkable Skill
and lucidity.
Judicial decisions of great Importance to the
country sometimes excite only languid inter-
est for the reason that they appear to aiiect the
nrivate welfare of individuals remotely ana only
TO a slight degree. In this determination d vast
number of citizens. representing practically all
conditions of life. feel themselves to be immedi-
arelv and deeply concerned. They have con-
crete evidence that the price of meat and indeed
of many other articles Of diet, has largely IN
creased in recent years, and the conVlcuoh Is
weIlnigh universal that this serious ADDITION 10
the cost of living has been deliberately caused
by the powerful combination which is known as
the Beef Trust Naturally, therefore, they VIII
hail with sentiment Of which the WORD denght
Is hardly too strong an expression the judgment
of the highest court that the practices by means
of which the combination is believed to have ac-
conlplished ruthless purpose are forbidden by
law and must be stopped. The expected Deneht
is not likely to be felt at once. The injunction
IS upheld. but the future action or the packers
is somewhat probematical, as perhaps also are
the measures 10 be employed to make the de-
cision effectual in case they are rebelious. IheY
have great resources and are doubtless anIe
10 command the services Of lawyers VINO would
like nothing better than to succeed in showing
them how the law might be safely defed; but
we hope It is not venturesome to assume that
the government, having prevailed thus far VIII
not be baked in the end
In two respects, outside the main issue, the
decision is peculiarly gratifying-namely. 1t is
unanimous and it clearly enunciates principles
which in the common opinion, have not invari-
ably been held dear by our judicial tribunals
! There is undoubtedly a strong feeling that
| American courts are prone to put upon the Ian
guage Of statutes an Interpretation which 1t
does not naturally convey-to consider that they
are bound to sacrifice the spirit and hold by the
| Ietter-to permit themselves to be solemnly
trifed with in a fashion which English courts
would not tolerate-to subordinate justice to au-
dacious technicaIities. In this decision the Su-
! preme Court gives more than one pleasing illus
| tratlon of the opposite view Of judicial duty.
This passage is especially striking:
Commerce among the States is not technical
! legal conception but a practical one. drawn
from the course OF business. When cattle are
sent for sale from a place in one State, with
the expectation that they Will end their transit
after purchase. In another. and when in effect
they DO So with only the interruption necessary
10 md a purchaser at the stockyards, and when
this is a typical constantly recurring course, the
current thus existing is a current OF commerce
among the States, and the purchase or the cattle
is part and incident of such commerce.
That declaration fatally undermines an eob-
crate scheme of argumentative defences such
as invariably appears fragile to the general in
telligence, but has too often been judicially re-
garded as impregnable, and in other sentences
of kindred import the court takes a position
which is fortified by common sense and which
the American people will rejoice to see it occu-
nVing