Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-09
MOODY ARGUES. 1HE
BEEF TRUST CASE
Attorney General Holds the
Packers Are Engaged In
Interstate Commerce
AGREEMENTS VIOLATE LAW
After Showing That the Beef Trust is
Working Under an Agreement in Re-
straint of Trade Moody Shows Their
Business Comes Within Definition of
Interstate Commerce.

Washington, Jan. 8. - Attorney Cen
eral Moody today resumed his argu-
ment on behalf of the government be-
fore the supreme court in the case
commonly known as the beef trust case,
begun last Friday. Moody said none
of he agreements or acts complained
of related to manufacture or produce
tion, but to commerce-commeIce as
distinguished from manufacture or
production. He said the inquiry is mar
rowed down to only two questions for
the determination OF the court. Whe-
ther the commerce in the case was
commerce among states, and If so,
whether the agreements constitute a
monopoly of any part of it. Taking
UP the agreement alleged in the petit
don Moody said, eliminating all state
ments by which the pleader character
ized the purpose and effect OF the a
Greement, the following state of facts
is clearly shown: Persons owning live
stock and living in other states and
territories than those where stock
yards are situated, were accustomed to
send such stock to various stock yards
named for the purpose OF sale There.
Defendants, who We're severally engag-
ed in the business of buying such llVe
stock, for the purpose Of slaushtering
and converting it into fresh meat. en-
tered into an agreement with each oth-
er to refrain from bidding against each
other, except collectively In pursuance
OF such agreement, with the purpose
aad result of suppressing all competlt-
aon in such purchases" The agreement
s having been thus clearly alleged, ne
said the question arose as to Whetner
the agreement relates to Interstate
commerce and proceeded to argue that
proposition.
He thought it inevitably followed
that those who take part IN the act
as venders are also engaged In inter-
state commerce. A further question
arises said Moody, whether such agree
ment affects interstate commerce elther
by way of direct restraint upon it or by
Its tendency to monopolize 1T. Arguing
on this question Moody said 1T would
be a useless parade Of learning to Of
fer to the attention of the court the
long line of decisions declaring that
the silence Of congress upon the sub
1ect Of interstate commerce is in effect
declaration that 1t shall be free and
0ntrammeled and referring to the act Of
1890, regulating interstate commerce,
said he knows of no other act which
restrains the freedom of an individual
to conduct interstate commerce accord
ing to his own discretion and
choice 1t follows he said that
conduct of defendants set forth in par
agraph six is entirely within their
rights, unless it constitutes contract,
combination or conspiracy In restraint
of trade or monopolization or attempt
to monopolize any part of such COM
merce He then proceeded to consider
alton of the meaning Of the prohibition
of the statutes and what is restraint of
trade After citing to a. long list Of
decisions, including those in the Addy-
stone Pine, and Northern Securities
cases, Moody said:
"I conclude that the agreement dis
closed in the petition to suppress all
competition among parties to it in the
purchase of livestock, SO situated as to
be subject to interstate commerce, is
. SSSS ~~--N- -
restraint of commerce, because in the
words Of this court in the Northern
Securities case. to destroy or restrict
free competition in interstate COM
merce is to restrain such commerce.
lawful advantages as tend to create
monopoly in necessity Of life. They
can not be permitted ingeniously to
separate the various steps of their un-
.p-l.. 1,,;%I, 40
they can be regarded as interstate
Moody, in concluding his argument
said: "I have discussed separately, all
agreements and acts of the defendants
which were complained of as unlawful
in the petition and enjoined by decree
of the court below. have endeavored
to show. with respect to each of them,
that they relate to interstate COM
merce and either restrained 1t or mon
opolized it within the meaning of the
law. should be unwilling. however to
rest the case here. There's larger
view Of it to be taken than appears
from the allegations in the petition
considered separately. These defend
ants are engaged in interstate com
merce. The petition shows typical
case of interstate commerce. II the
business which they do exclusive of
manufacture is not interstate COM
merce. there can be no such thing out
side of transportation. 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 OF
the country After they have trans
FORMED that material into the finished
product, they sell 1t thruout the United
States The combina ton which they
have entered into is designed to res
train all their business transactions,
exclusive of manufacture. by suppress
sion of all competition therein, both in
their purchases and their sales. by
fixing and maintaining uniform prices
for their product, and so far as pos
sible, uniform prices for their raw
material; and by obtaining such un-