The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1905-01-10
THE BEEF TRUST CASE
Argument Begun Before the United
States Supreme Court.
PACKERS ATTACK THE BILL

Declare Charges Are Not Facts But
Conclusions Of Law, and Admit
They Have Understanding to Main
tain Supply Of Cattle.
Washington. Jan. Argument in
the case OF Swift & CO. vs.. the United
States. known as the Beef Trust Con
gpiracy case. was begun before the
supreme court OF the United States by
Attorney John S. Miller. OF Chicago In
behalf of the packers. He attacked
the bin OF the government as insum-
cient in its failure to allege facts nee
essary to constitute a cause OF action
and said that the charges made are
not facts. but conclusions Of law; that
the commerce charged Is not inter-
state or foreign commerce. and that
even If It be interstate commerce the
facts given constitute no violation OF
law.
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. and quoting
the decree of the court making per-
manent the Injunction Mr. Miller said
II merely adds the prohibition OF the
court to that of congress. leaving the
hackers 10 ascertain wheSier indiyid-
ual acts will be- in contempt OF the
courts order. He contended that the
case presents an Interference in Dusl'
ness such as never before has been I'M
dertaken. The charges. he said, are
Of the most general character, and do
not specify time aud place.
1T is alleged" interrupted Justice
White. that your clients agents com
bined to refrain from bidding in order
10 put prices down. and again agreed
to put them mp: do you think there
should have been n specification OF
hour and place.
"Yes. your Honor" responded Mr..
Miller III the government had these
facts. why should it not have given
them"
Did you ask for a bill OF particu-
lars?" inquired Justice Harlan. and
Mr. Miller replied in the negative,
saving that the defendants had filed a
demurrer in the case.
Mr. Miller said that il the packing
industry could be interfered with as
proposed in this case the manufac-
turing industries could be similarly
regulated and thus you will find" be
added. the federal courts regulating
a considerable part OF the commerce
OF the country"
Explaining the economic situation,
Mr.. Miller said the demand for fresh
meat is fairly uniform. and owing TO
the necessity for maintaining a proper
supply OF an acceptable article. he said
there should be some understanding
among the packers. This is. he said.
perfectly legitimate. and the govern
ment itself might properly assume
this supervision The cattle supply
Is not so regular as the demand, anu
TO this fact Mr. Miller attributed the
huctuation in prices
When Mr.. Miller concluded. Attor-
ney General Moody began. 1t was
idle he said. 10 discuss the contention
that the charges OF the bill are not
connected one with another. Be that,
he added as 1t may. the purpose OF the
suit is single and all the separate
parts Of the bill are interdependent
for the accomplishment of the end.
He also maintained the constitutions
ality OF the provision Of the bill asking
for discovery of the books of the
packers.
Mr. Moody had scarcely begun when
the court adjourned until Monday.