The San Francisco call., 1905-01-07
Argument Presented
Before Supreme
Tribunal.
Held Suit Is Unprecedented
Interference With
Business.
Judge Holmes Interrupts Case to State
lie Is Interested in Other Stock
yards Not Involved.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6.-Argument
in the case of Swift & Co. VS.. the United
States, known as the beef trust con-
spiracy case, was begun before the Su-
preme 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
insufficient in its failure to alIege facts
necessary to constitute cause of ac-
ton, and said that the charges made
were not facts. but conclusions of law;
that the commerce charged was not in
terstate nor foreign commerce, and that
even if it were interstate commerce the
facts given constituted 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
anti-t trust act. He contended that the
case presented an interference in busi-
ness such as never before had been un-
dertaken. The charges. he said, We're
of the most general character and did
not specify time and place.
lie did not believe. therefore. that the
chafges could stand at ali, 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.
FEARS COURT CONTROL.
'It is alleged" interrupted Justice
White, that your clients agents COM
bined to refrain from bidding in order
to put prices down, and again agreed
to put them up. Do you think there
should have been a specification of hour
and placer"
Yes, your Honor responded Miller
"If the Government had the facts why
should it not have given them?"
Did you ask for bill Of particu-
lars?" inquired Justice Harlan, and
Miller replied in the negative, saying
that the defendants had filed a de-
murrer in the case.
Miller said that If the packing indus
try could be interfered with as pro-
posed in this case, the manufacturing
industries could be similarly regulated,
and thus you will find" he added,
"the Federal courts regulating a con-
siderable 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.
Explaining the economic condition,
Miller said the demand for fresh meat
was fairly uniform, and owing to the
necessity for maintaining a proper sup
ply 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 the
supervision. The cattle supply, was
not so regular as the demand, and to
this fact Miller attributed the huctua-
ton in prices.
HOLMES HOLDS STOCK.
At the beginning of Miller's present.
alton of the case he was interrupted
by Justice Holmes, who said he held
stock in the Union Stockyards In Chi
cago and also In the Kansas City yards.
and inquired II they were involved in
the case. Miller replied that they were
not.
When Miller concluded Attorney Gen.
eral Moody began. 1t was idle, he
said, to discuss the contention that the
charges Of the bill are not connected
one with another. Be that as 1t may,
he added, the purpose Of the suit was
single. and all the separate parts of
the bill We're interdependent for the
accomplishment of that end.
He also maintained the constitutions
ality of the bill, and asked for the
books of the packers. Moody had
scarcely begun when the court ad-