Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1905-02-01
Supreme Court Of the United States
Renders Sweeping Decision
Against the Trust.
STRENGTHENS SHERMAN ACT
Right Of the Government to Prevent
Combinations Among the Man.
ufacturers.

against Swift & Co., known as the beef
trust case. charging conspiracy among
the packers to fix prices on fresh
meats, etc. The opinion was handed
down by Justice Holmes and affirm.
ed the decision of the court below.
which was against the packers.
In his opinion Justice Holmes dis.
cussed at length the various conten.
tions of the packers and disposed of
them individually. He admitted that
some OF the charges were less specific
than desirable, but said this was nec-
essarily true on account of the vast
extent of the field covered. He added
that Sufficient evidence had been
shown to prove continuous offenses
and an offense of such a nature as
to justify the proceeding. The opin-
ion continues the Injunction granted
against the packers under the Sher-
man antitrust law b, the lower
courts. The opinion was concurred in
by all the members of the court.
Charges That Are Sustained.
Summarizing the bill, Justice
Holmes said: 1T charges a combina-
ton of dominant proportion OF the
dealers in fresh meat throughout the
United States not to bid against each
other in the livestock markets of the
different states; to bid up prices for
a few days in order to induce the cat
tlemen to send their stock to the stock
yards; to fix prices at which they will
sell, and to that end to restrict ship
ments of meat when necessary; to es.
tablish a uniform rule of credit to
dealers and to keep a blacklist; to
make uniform and improper charges
for carriage, and finally, to get less
than lawful rates from the railroads
to the exclusion of competitors"
He also said: "The commission al
oily of trade with a single state, al
though it's effect upon commerce
among the states is not accident, sec
ondary remote or merely probable"
Speaking further ON the question of
interference with interstate COM
merce, Justice Holmes said that
charge was made of combination OF
independent dealers to restrict the
competition of the agents who pur-
chase stock for them in the stock
yards.
Intent is Monopoly.
The purchasers and their slaugh-
tering establishments are" he said,
largely in different states from those
of the stock yards and the sellers OF
the cattle, perhaps II il Aot too much
to assume, largely in different states
from either. The intent of the COM
binatiOn is not merely To restrict COM
petition among the parties, but, as we
have said, by force of the general al
legation at the end of the bill. to aid
in an attempt to monopolize com
merce among states"
He added: when cattle are sent
for sale from a place in one state,
with the expectation that they will
end their transit afte. purchase, in
and when in effect they do
so, with the only interruption neces-
sary being to find a purchaser at the
stock yards, and when this is a typi.
cal, constantly recurring course the
current thus existing Is current OF
commerce among the states. and the
purchase of the cattle is a part and
incident of such commerce"
10 Under Supervision Of Congress.
With reference to the allegation
that no interstate cOmenrce is involv-
ed in the sale of meats by the pack
ers, the opinion says: "The allega-
tions of the second section. even If
they import a technical passage of IT,
lie at the siaughtering places. also i'm
port that the sales are to persons in
separate states, and shipments to 9TH
er states are part OF the transaction
pursuant to such sales'-and the third
section imports that the same things
which are sent to agents are sold by
..em and sufficiently indicates that
some, at least, of the sales are of the
original packages. Moreover, the sales
are by persons in one state to persons
in another. But we do not mean to
imply that the rule which marks the
point at which s,ate taxation or regu- |
alton becomes permissible necessar-
ly is beyond the scope of interference
1y congress in cases where such inter |
ference is deemed necessary for the |
of commerce among the |
states Nor do we mean to intimate |
hat the statute under consideration
8 limited to that point"
After referring in detail to the OBJ
ections to the original bill OF CON-
,laint, and dispOsing OF all of them as |
Justice Holmes said: |
The defendants cannot be ordered to
compete, but they properly can be for
,idden to give directions or to make |
agreements not to compete
Notifications of the injunction were
suggested as follows:
1.-The general words of the injunc-
ion, or by any other method or de-
'ice,' the purpose and effect OF which
s to restrain cOmemrce as aforesaid.
hould be stricken out. The defend
.nts ought to be informed as accurate
y as the case permits what they are
orbidden to do. Specific devices are
Mentioned in the bill, and they stand
,rohibited. The words quoted are a
weeping injunction to obey the law,