The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1905-02-01
TRUST CASE CLOSES
Attorney General Moody Winds Up
His Prosecution.
COURT ROOM WAS W
1t Was Contended That the Packers vio-
lated the Law by Entering Into an
Agreement For SURPRISING Compete
ton Both in the Purchase of Live Stock
and In the Sale Of Fresh Meat.

O. ASfSN s"S
Agreement For SURPRISING Compete
ton Both in the Purchase Of Live Stock
and In the Sale OF Fresh Meat.
Washington. D. C.-Arguments in the
so-called Beef Trust case were con-
cluded in the Supreme Court, Attor-
ney-General Moody appearing for the
Government in favor Of continuing the
Injunction issued by Judge Grosscup
at Chicago. ILL.,. and Attorney Miller
closing the case in favor Of Swift, Ar
mour and other packers. The space
within the railing was crowded with
members of the bar. who listened to
the arguments with close attention,
particularly those Of the Attorney
General.
MI. Moody said 1t appeared that
the defendants. who were seven cor
porations. one co%partnership and twen-
ty.three individuals. were engaged in
the business of buying live stock. con-
verting it into fresh meat and selling
the meat throughout the country. 1t
was obvious that the business included
both manufacture or production and
commerce. They were charged with
violating the law by entering into an
agreement fcr suppressing competition
in the purchase of live stock and OF
competition In the sale Of fresh meat.
None of the charges related to manu-
fscture. or production, but all related
to commerce, not necessarily inter-
state commerce. but commerce as dis
tinguished from manufacture or pro-
duction.
In this it differed from the Knight
case, which concerned only manufac-
ture or production There was no fu-
sion or acquisition of property inter-
ests, as in the Northern Securities case.
but simply agreements between ,stran-
gers to each others business affecting
their freedom of action in certain re-
spects. The charges did not relate to
any matters, merely incidental or coll
lateral to commerce. or which aided or
facilitated it. On the contrary, they
related to commerce itself, and were
made and done by those who were con-
Quoting it with respect to it's conduct.
These propositions narrowed the IN
quiry and left for the court the deter
mination Of only two questions:
First-Whether the commerce in this
case was commerce among the States,
and if so
Second-Whether the agreements con-
stituted a restraint Of such commerce.
or created or promoted q monopoly OF
no part OF it.
The case of the Government required
that both of these questions should be
answered in the affirmative, otherwise
it failed. =
In taking up the charge of suppress
sing competition in buying live stock.
Mr.. Moody said the agreement to that
effect having been clearly alleged. the
question arose whether that agreement
related to interstate commerce. That
depended upon whether the sales OF
stock with which the agreement con.
cerned itself were a part Of interstate
commerce.
Referring to the action of the pack.
ers in controlling the selling price OF
fresh meat by secret meetings through
out the country by their agents at
which a uniform price was fixed, Mr.,
Moody said it was clearly a restraint
of interstate commerce in view of
other decisions by the court. .'.'.
Mr.. Moody REINFORCED his conclu.
sions by a long list Of decisions Of the
Supreme Court in interstate commerce
cases giving similar points. particu-
larly in the original package decisions.
In closing for the packers Attorney
Miller c%ontended that the Government
had not shown by specific charges that
the law had been violated in directly
restraining trade and. competition!
The court then took the case under
adyisement.