The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1905-01-07
ARGUMENT IN THE
BEEF TRUST CASE
Bill OF Government Attacked in
Supreme Court.
FAILS TO ALICE FACTS
ATTORNEY GENERAL BEGINS
HIS REPLY.
FAILS TO ALICE FACTS

Washington. Jan. 6--Argunents in
the case of Swift & Co. against the
United States. known as the beer trust
conspiracy case, was begun before the
supreme court Of the United States to-
day by Attorney John s. Miller of Chi
cago in behalf OF the packers. He at
tackled the bill of the government as in
SUFFICIENT in its failure 10 allege facts
necessary 10 constitute a cause of ac-
ton, and said that the charges made
were not facts. but conclusions of law
that the commerce charged was not
interstate or foreign commerce, and
that even If il were interstate COM
merce the facts given constituted no
violation Of law.
Under Antitrust Act.
He said that an injunction had been
prayed for and secured from the United
states circuit court for the northern
district of Illinois under the Sherman
antitrust act. He contended that the
case presented an interference in bust
ness such as never before had been
undertaken. The charges, he said were
of the most general character, and did
not specify time and place. He did not
believe. therefore. that the charges
could stand at all, and he quoted the
indictments in the whisky case to show
that charges much more specific than
were here made had been regarded as
insufficient.
1T is alleged" interrupted Justice
White, that your clients agents COM
bined to refrain from bidding, in order
to put prices down and again agreed
10 put them up; do you think there
should have been a specification Of
hour and placer"
Miller. IF the government had these
facts. why should it not have given
them?"
No Bill of Particulars.
did you ask for bill of particu-
lars2" inquired Justice Harlan, and
Mr.. Miller replied in the negative, say
ing that the defendants had filed a de-
murrer in the case.
Mr.. Miller said that If the packing
industry could be interfered with as
proposed in this case. the manufactur-
ing industries could be similarly regu-
lated. and thus you viii find he
added. 1.-The federal courts regulating
a considerable part of the commerce OF
the country"
He contended that there was no in
terstate commerce involved, because
the business of the packers. including
the purchase of cattle and the sale OF
meat. was confined entirely TO Chicago
Cattle Supply Irregular.
Explaining the economic situation.
Mr. Miller said the demand for fresh
meat was fairly uniform and, owing II
the necessity for maintaining a proper
supply of an acceptable article, he said
there should be some understanding
among the packers. This was, he said,
perfectly legitimate. and the govern
ment itself might properly assume TINS
supervision The cattle supply was not
so regular as the demand, and u this
fact Mr.. Miller attributed the fiuctu-
alton in prices.
MI Moody's reply.
When Mr.: Miller concluded. Attorney
General Moody began 1t was able, he
said. to discus sthe contention that the
charges of the bill are not connected
one with another. Be that. he added,
1t may, the purpose of the suit was
single, and all the separate parts of
the bill were interdependent for the
accomplishment of that end.
He also maintained the constitution
atty of the bill asking for discovery
cf the books of the packers.
Mr.. Moody had scarcely begun when
the court adjourned until Monday.
Justice Owns Stock.
At the beginning of MIR. MiIler's pres
entatiOn OF the case he was interrupted
by Justice Holmes, who said that he
held stock in the other union stock
yards in Chicago and also i'm the Kan
sas City yards. and inquired if they
We're involved in the case.
Mr. Miller replied that they were not.