The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-09-16
r Possible Crisis In the Life Of the Bee

.'aits.s',.', sassN:s HE recent announce
F@-1@1E ment that a time had
* been fixed upon as
S:. . trial day for the twen-
ty or more packers
5S!sssAA Is and corporations in
lii,s a,'s,Ll lass!s% dicted July 1 by the
federal grand jury at
Chicago is fresh evidence that the pros
scution of the beef trust will be push
ed. Ever since the finding of the grand
jury the United States district attor-
ney's office for the northern district of
Illinois has been the scene of great
activity. Assistant Attorney General
Oliver 2. Pagin has been in constant
cooperation with District Attorney
Charles B. Morrison, and the govern
ment has evidently spared no effort to
perfect the preparatory work.
The indictment of these individuals
and corporations was not the result of
3 hasty and i'll advised judgment on
the part of the grand jurors. Its in
spiration was neither malice nor SEN
Girnent. It was a deliberate and well
digested conclusion arrived at after
ninety days of patient and laborious
investigation. The accused had every
opportunity to pose as victims of an
unjust popular suspicion. There is no
reason to believe that they neglected
the last remaining chance to influence
public opinion. 1t is quite certain that
they did not make a favorable impress
sion on the members of the federal
grand jury.
Seventeen of the number indicted, in
Guiding the half dozen milIionaires who
control the meat supply of a large por-
ton of the world, are charged with
having organized a commercial con-
spiracy which resulted in increasing
the cost OF meat to the consumer
Along with the companies they repre-
sent they are accused of banding to-
gether to restrain trade and to mo-
nopolize the meat product in violation
of the Sherman antitrust law of 1890
The others are indicted for conspiring
to secure rebates from various rail-
roads in connection with the shipment
of meat.
Each of the accused packers and
packing concerns is indicted on ten
counts. In the event of conviction an
individual is subject to fine of $4,000
or Imprisonment for one year in the
county Jail, or both, on each count. In
the case of a corporation only the fine
applies Conviction of one or all of
those charged with rebating involves
nnes of not less than 81, 900 or more
than $4,000 on each count
Five classes of charges are made
against the big packers. They are &C
cused of destroying competition in the
buying of cattle and of fixing excessive
prices in the sale of the dressed prod
uct. They are charged with organic
ing combinations in restraint of trade
in the domestic and foreign markets,
not only in fresh and drief beef, but
also in byproducts, such as sausages,
oleo, lard, stearin and tallow. Further
more, they are declared to have COM
bined unlawfully a number of smaller
packing companies into the National
Packing company. with the result of
sitting competition and restraining the
free expansion of commerce.
The history of the prosecution of the
beef trust is very interesting to the
student of American affairs. 1t actual
ly began on May 10, 1902, when at
torneys acting for the government and
directed by the president petitioned
Judge Peter S. Grosscup in Chicago
for an injunction forbidding the pack
ers to combine in restraint of trade.
The injunction was granted on May 81
and orders were issued by the packers
to their agents and employees to obey
implicitly. That the injunction was
soon disregarded was made evident in
letter from President Roosevelt to
Paul Morton (who was then retiring
from the navy Department., relating to
the rebate discussion. 1--WE have evil
dence that the packers have willfuIIy
and deliberately violated the Grosscup
Injunction wrote the president
On Jan. 81 following, the United
States supreme court sustained the
Grosscup injunction. Then it began to
look as if drastic action was inevitable.
The government was given full power