Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-10
THE SUPREME COURT
Mr.. Miller Closes for the Beef
Packers.
CLOSELY QUESTIONED
NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF INTER
EST HANDED DOWN.
Liability Of the Government on Mail
Contracts-User of Cars Response
BILE for Their Condition.

Attorney General Moody was followed by
Mr.. Miller, who closed for the packers in
the argument on the beef trust cases in
the United States Supreme Court yesterday
afternoon.
Mr.. Miller said that necessarily the pres
entatiOn of the case must be confined within
the limits of the bill of complaint, and that
epithets could not be appealed to as at
tempted by the Attorney General to make
the case complete. In all other cases OF
like character there had been a distinct
agreement, but here, he said, the charges
were all general and the specifications in
definite conclusions of law or epithets.
Mr. Miller took up the charge of rebates
and said the facts must be set up in some
way before the court could take cognizance
of them. In this instance there was no
specification, and as a consequence the de-
PENDANTS could properly respond only by
demurrer. The defendants had. he said.
built up their interests among themselves
and in competition between themselves and
with others. True, their business was ex-
tensive, but If SO, it was, Mr.. Miller con-
tended, the result Of their ingenuity and
not necessarily by acts in restraint Of trade.
Justice Harlan's Query.
Suppose" asked Justice Harlan, 1.-The
combinations alleged were confined to do
mestic commerce in the state of Illinois,
would you consider 1t a restraint of trader
Mr.. Miller replied in the negative.
Justice Harlan asked how it would be If
there was a combination by coal mine own
ers to control the price of coal.
To this question Mr.. Miller replied that it
would depend largely on the extent of the
combination, and also upon whether there
were state antitrust laws.
On the point as to whether the under
standing between the packers effects re-
straint of trade as prohibited by the Sher-
man act, he argued that the present case
presents no analogy to the Addystone pipe
case. for In that case there was division
of territory among manufacturers. No such
effort was made in the case of the packers.
Cattle remain In the yards until sold, and,
accordingly. as the property Of the state
for taxation and other state purposes
Hence the purchase must be considered an
act of domestic commerce. because a rule
applying to the state must apply to it's
cluzens. and the conclusion arrived at was
that no commerce between the states was
involved. 1t could not be contended that
Congress would have any power to forbid
the dealing in such cattle in domestic COM
merce. s,,.r
Questioned by Justice White.
Justice White asked a question as to the
effect of an agreement to fix the price of
meat in another state, but Mr.. Miller con-
tended that the charge In the pending case
did not go so far as that.
With reference to the charge that the
packers bid up prices at certain places in
order to cause increased Shipments Mr.
Miller said If this was true it was evident
that cattle growers would send to more
desirable markets and thus cheat the pack-
ers of the end sought
In closing Mr.. Miller contended for the
right of the defendants to definite specifi.
cations. 1t must be remembered, he said,
that agreements relating to interstate
trade were not prohibited, but that the
prohibition extended to combinations in
restraint of trade only. The purpose of
the Sherman bill was, he said to encour-
age trade and not to shackle it, but if in
functions We're to be granted on such pleas
as that before the court, then the end
sought surely would not be attained He
concluded as he had begun, by declaring
that the method of proceeding was without
precedent.