Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-09
THE BEEF TRUST CASE
Close Of Argument by the
Attorney General.
RESTRAINT OF TRADE
ALLEGED FEATURES OF A REPUT-
ED CONSPIRACY.
How Producers Are Kept at the Mercy
of the Combination of Buyers
and Packers.

Attorney General Moody today
| closed his argument on behalf of
| the'g government before the Supreme
Court of the United States in the
case of Swift & Company against
the United States, commonly
known as the beef trust case, begun
last Friday.
Mr.. Moody said none of the agreements
| or acts complained of relate to manufacture
or production but to commerce-commerce
I as distinguished from manufacture pro-
duction. They do not accomplish fusion of
property interests, he said, but are on the
contrary simply agreements between
strangers to each others business, affecting
their freedom of action in certain respects,
and by that consideration the case at bar
| is shown to be devoid of those features
| from which differences of opinion arose in
| the Northern Securities case. He also
! pointed out differences between this and the
Knight and Hopkins cases. Thus he said
the inquiry is narrowing down to only two
questions for the determination of the
court.
| Two Questions at Issue.
Whether the commerce in the case was
commerce among the states and if So
whether the agreements constitute a mo-
nopoly of any part of it.
Mr.. Moody said it appears clearly in the
petition that there were three main sub
| JectS upon which the defendants entered
into an agreement
Taking up the agreement alleged in para
graph of the petition, Mr.. Moody said that
eliminating all the statements by which the
pieader characterized the purpose and effect
of the agreement the following state of
facts is clearly shown:
Persons owning live stock and living in
other states and territories than those
where the stock yards are situated were
accustomed to send such stock to the va
rious stock yards named for the purpose of
sale there.
The defendants. who were severally en-
gagged In the business of buying such live
stock. for the purpose of slaughtering and
converting 1t into fresh meat, entered into
an agreement with each other to refrain
from bidding against each other, except
colorably, in the pursuance of such live
stock, with the purpose and result of sup
pressing all competition in such purchases"
An agreement having been thus clearly
alleged, he said, the question arose as to
whether the agreement relates to interstate
commerce and proceeded to argue the prop
osition, saying that the same sort of bar
| gain is made for cattle produced and owned
within the state of sale for cattle pro-
| duced and owned in another state and sent
| to the 'locus'' of the transaction for the
| purpose of sale here.
The interstate character of the transac-
| ton, he said, where an owner of a COM
modify living in one state ships it to an
other, continues from the beginning of the
| shipment to and including the sale of the
l,l
| by the breaking of the original package IN
| which it had been imported.
Interstate Commerce.
| Mr. Moody cited numerous decisions as
| to what constitutes interstate commerce
and an original package. and, quoting from
| one opinion of the court, said 1t was clearly
established by the case in point that the
| sale by the owner, or his agent, of COM
| modities imported or to be imported from
another state to the place of sale in the
| original package is an act of Interstate
commerce. and the owner, or his agent,
taking part as vendor, is engaged in trans
acting interstate commerce. He thought IT
| inevitably followed that those who take
part in the act as vendors also engag-
ed in interstate commerce. Continuing, he
| said:
ut is contended that the unloading of the
cattle from the cars in which they are
| transported and their disposition in the va
FiOuSo penis III the StOckydTuS constitute d
breaking of the original package and
commingling of the property with the do
mestic property of the state to such an eX
tent that the purchase and sale of them are
domestic commerce. 1t is difficult to treat
| this contention seriously. If the original
package conception has only relevancy to
| this discussion, surely 1t must be that the
packages which nature itself has made are
the original packages.
1.-The two parties to the transaction the
buyer and the seller, when they agree upon
the contract of sale, are effecting an inter
state transaction"
Long Line Of Decisions.
| Arguing on this question, Mr. Moody said
| 1t would be useless parade of learning to
| offer to the attention of the court the long
| line of decisions declaring that the silence
| of Congress upon the subject of interstate
| commerce is in effect declaration that it
| shall be free and untrammeled. and refer
| ring to the act of 1880, regulating the in
terState commerce, says he knows of no
other act which restraints the freedom of
the individual to conduct interstate COM
merce according to his own discretion and
choices
| 1t follows, he says, that the conduct of
the defendants set forth in paragraph 6
is entirely within their rights, unless it
constitutes a contract, combination con-
spiracy in restraint of trade or monopuli-
Zation or attempt to monopolize any part
of such commerce He then proceeded
to the consideration of the meaning Of
the prohibition of the statutes, and what
is restraint of trade
Having cited certain species of contract
which he did not believe should be held
to be within the prohibition of the inter-
state commerce act. Mr.. Moody said:
"But each age has its own evils, and
there has come into view In more modern
times another kind of contract which, un-
fortunately, as venture to say, has been
also called contract in restraint of trade
Although there. are some resemblances be-
tween this kind of contract and the one
which l have just described nevertheless
there is an essential distinction between
them. This kind of contract is not made as
| ancillary or collateral to any other con-