The Washington times., 1905-01-09
Says Packers Are Guilty
of Restraint of Com
nlerce-
GET UNLAWFUL REBATES
They Shelter Their Mis-
conduct by Ciphers and
Secret Codes.

Attorney General Moody made the
argument for the Government before the
Supreme Court of the United States this
afternoon in the beef trust cases he
said in part:
Stating the facts alleged IN the petit
ton in the most general way, Il appears
that the defendants. who are seven cor
porations. one copartnership and tweT1-
I Jy-three other persons, were engaged IN
the business OF buying live stock, con-
verting it into fresh naeac and selling
the meat throughout the country The
business of each was independent OF the
i others and each was competing WITH
the others and all the world It Is OBJ
| Sious that the business included both
manufacture or production and com
merce-
The offense with which they are
charged. IS that while thus situated they
entered 1ngo certain agreements with
each other and performed certain acts N
pursuance thereof, al OF which are
claimed to be unlawful.
/ 1t viii be useful TO ascertain witI ae-
icuracy certain characteristics wElrn al
the agreements and acts complained OF
possess
Characteristics Of Agreement
cd None of them relate TO manu-
facture or production, but ali relate 10
commerce
@t2} They do not accomplish any fusion
Of property interests, or any acquisition
by any. OF rights in the property OF the
J other defendants They are, on The con-
1rary, simply agreements between
strangers to each others business af-
+ E-cting their freedom OF acton n eer7
tain respects
-rs+.
which are incidental or collateral 70
commerce or which aid or facilitate Il
On the contrary, they relate 10 eom-
nerce itself, and are made and done
by those who are conducting II with
resDeet 10 its conduct
These three propositions narrow the
inquiry and leave for the determine
ton OF the court only two questions.
I'd Whether the commerce in this
case was commerce among the States;
and If so
"t2} Whether the agreements consti-
tute a restraint OF such commerce or
create CT promote a monopoly OF any
part Of II
.sThe case of the Government requires
that both Of these question should pc
answered in the affirmative: otherwise
It fails It appears clearly in the petit
ton that there were three main subjects
upon which the defendants entered into
: an agreement with each other:
Refrain Frem Bidding.
@(a) The agreement to refrain from
bidding against each other, except pos
, sIbly in the purchase OF live stock At
, stock yards Tie question arises
whether the agreement relates 10 inter-
state commerce Where an owner OF
: commodities living IN one State. trans
ports them TO another State for sale.
the interstate character of the transac-
: ton continues from the beginning OF the
shipment to and including the sale Of
the commodity, il the commodity has
. not lost its identity by the breaking OF
the original package in which II has
been imported
The Attorney General here cites va
rious cases in support of this contention
/ Continuing he said. 1T IS contendei
E that the unloading OF the cattle from
: the cars IN which they are transported
and their disposition IN the various pens
K in the stock yards constitute a breaking
: OF the original package and a c0mming-
ling OF the property with the domestic
: property of the State, TO such an ex-
d tent that the purchase and sale OF them
d are domestic commerce. Il IS difficult
/ TO treat this contention seriously If the
relevancy 10 this discussion, surely II
d must be that the packages which na-
$ ture itself has made, are the original
d packages. The two parties 10 the trans
i action. the buser and the seller. when
s they agree upon the contract OF sale
Fl are effecting an Interstate transaction
le Where, then, all or substantially all OF
the buyers IN this interstate nlarkei
enter into an agreement with respeei
:, 10 their conduct in making purchases
a the agreement thus entered into relates
: 10 interstate commerce
II Affects Interstate Commerce.
5, ..The further question arises whethe,
such an agreement affects interstat,
ae commerce either Ey way OF direct re
- =, straint upon II, or by rs tendency I.
monopollze it. It would be aseles
parade Of learning 10 offer 20 the az
- tention of the court. the long list Of I
- decisions declaring that The silence .
Congress upon the subject Of interstau
"a commerce is, in effect. 2 declarati01
~ that il shall be free and uRtra amueled
u conclude that the agreement dis
al closed in the sixth para asra.h OF tn
petition. TO suppress all competition
,5 among the PARTIES TO II in the purchas
-, OF live stcch 50 situated as 70 be III
~ subject OF Interstate commerce. Is with
:; | III the meaning OF the laW and III rs
,-a straInt OF commerce. because II th
-. words OF this court - the &orthez
~ Securities case, 10 destroy or restrse
-, free competition IN interstaea ,connare
is 10 RESTRAIN Stel2 commerce.
.-tBe The second main subject c
agreement among the parties IS thai a