Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-07-02
AND1LLEGAL RELATING
RESULT OF INVESTIGATION OF
SEVERAL MONTHS.
Official Explanation Of Basis for Indict-
ments-S5, 900 Bonds Suggested
for Each Defendant

prominent In the beef packing Industries
for the violation of the Sherman antitrust
law and against four officials of Schwarzs-
child & Suzberger for alleged illegal re-
batting agreement with railroads.
Besides these individual indictments bills
were voted against Armour q CO. Swift a.
Co, Nelson Morris a Co. the Cudahy
Packing Company and the Fairbanks can
ming Company.
The men indicted for alleged cor sptracy
in restraint of trade, which constitutes a
violation of the Sherman act. are:
J. Ogden Armour, president of Armour
q Co. Chas. Armour of Armour q Co.
Arthur Meeller. general manage. Armour
& Co.: T. J. Connors. director Armour az
Co: p. +. Valentine, treasurer Armour Il
Co; Samuel McRoberts. assistant treas
urer Armour & Co; Louis f. Swift presi-
dent of Swift & Co.; Chas. Swift OF Swift
q Co: Lawrence A. Carton. treasurer Swift
q Co: Arthur r. Evans attorney for swift
Co: r. G. McManus. attorney for
Swift & Co; A. Ii. Veeder general counsel
for Swift & Co.; Edward Cudahy OF Cudahy
x Co: ID. T.. Hartwell secretary Swift a
Co: Edward Swift, vice president Swift a.
Co. Edward Morris, secretary Nelson
Morris CO.: Ira w Morris of Nelson
Morris & Co
The four employees OF Schwarzschild &
Sulzberger. who were indicted for alleged
relation with the railroads. are all con
nected with the traffic department OF the
corporation. Their names are; SamueI
We'll. b. S. Cusey. c. T. Todd, v ID. Skip
worth.
The indictments voted for alleged viola
ton of the antitrust law were Identical
In each instance. The indictments contain
ed each eight counts, which were spread
over sixty-three typewriter pages.
Specific Conspiracy Charge.
The indictment against Messrs. Wen.
Cusey. Todd and Skipworth of Schwarz-
schild & Sulzberger charges that on the 3D.
day of February 1903 the four men con-
spired with others to the jury unknown TO
commit an offense against the United
States by soliciting and accepting for
Schwarzschild & Sulzberger from the
Michigan Central Railroad Company.
the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific. the
Grand Trunk. the Lehigh Valley, the Bos-
ton and Maine and the Mobile and Ohio
railroad companies large sums OF money as
rebates of the money paid and to be paid
by Schwarzschild q Sulzberger for the
transportation of goods, -E
A specific case was mentioned against
Cusey having occurred on January 80.
1904, when, it is said. that he presented 10
the Michigan Central railroad a claim for
rebates in favor of Schwarzschild & Suz-
berger. which claim was numbered l05l3
by the packing company. and +. 16l BOB by
the Michigan Central, amounting TO
S2976S9. number of other cases similar
In character were mentioned against Cnsey
and the other three men. Appended to the
Indictment was a copy OF a letter alleged to
have been written on May 10, 1904. by
Cusey to Assistant General Freight Agent
Bircheet of the Mobile and Ohio. in which
he declared that such business as Schwarz-
schild & Sulzberger had been giving the
railroad had been diverted until the COM
pany should receive more consideration
from the railroad.
An Official Explanation.
Assistant Attorney General II. o. Pagin
said in explanation:
THE indictments are based on the act or
Congress approved July 2. 1890. popularity
known as the Sherman antitrust law. The
first section OF this act makes 1T an Of
Tense for any person or corporation to en-
gage in any combination In the form or
trusts or otherwise. conspiracy in re-
straint of trade or commerce among the
several states or with foreign nations. Sec
ton makes it an offense to monopolize or
attempt to monopolize any part or such
trade or commerce. the penalty under each
section In case of conviction Is hne. not
exceeding 5000 or imprisonment not ex-
ceeding one year. or both IN the discretion
of the court.
"Of course, a corporation could not be
imprisoned. and In this direction the pun
ishment by fine is all that can apply. In
all other respects corporations, which are
artificial persons. stand in the same atti-
.ude as individuals under this law.
1.-THE question as to what constitutes
trust Is not thoroughly settled. Some au-
thorities include In the definition OF trust
the idea of placing stocks of different cor
porations In the hands OF another corpora
ton to be held in trust and managed with
the interference Of the separate corpora
ton which are thus put in combination.
.It is true that the stock of zen smaller
hacking concerns previously running in
opposition to the big packers. was bought
up by individuals connected with the big
packing corporations and placed with an
other corporation. organized Tor the pur.
nose of holding these stocks. the National
Packing Company, but this indictment
makes no direct charge against the National
Packing Company or any OF It's officers en-
cept such as were o1ncers OF the Dig pdch-
ing companies.
of the smaller companies were purchased,
not merely the controlling interest CT eacn
of the smaller companies was acquired. out
ALI the stock was bought up. so that the
purchasers were In a position ID wipe out
Of existence the companies so purchased.
On this point the National Packing Com
many differed from the Northern Securities
case lately decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States. In the latter case
only the controlling interest OF the ram
roads concerned was bought up and put In
the hands of a third corporation for man
agement. =
handed into court District Attorney Morri-
son suggested that each of the defendants
be placed under bonds of 5000. and when
the court asked IL bench warrants were to
be served he was Informed by the district
attorney that the legal advisers for all or
the men included in the indictments had
agreed to produce the men on Monday. or
as soon as possible after July 4 Some OF
the defendants are not In Chicago and can
not come into court Immediately. s
First to Offer Bonds.
The first one of the Indicted men to offer
bonds was B. s. Cusey. indicted for rebat-
ing with the railroads. He appeared In
court about one hour after the indictments
had been returned and gave bond OF
s., 900 for his appearance when wanted Inc
cases against the defendants VIII not De
tried until fall. -si
Attorney John 8. Miller of counsel for
the packing firms gave out the following
statement as soon he learned OF the IN
dictments:
.'I ask for the packers who have been In
dfcted the withholding OF judgment until
their side of this matter can be properly
presented. 1 think the investigation on
which these indictments are based was in
stituted and carried on with the previous
conviction that the accused were guilty and
that the thing to accomplish was to get the
evidence. The packers have been held In