The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-07-03


the supply was too great.
The Kenwood company, another cor
poration, was to handle oleo oils and
products on substantially the same
lines, excepting that there was to be
no destruction Of these commodities.
These agents of the packers were also
to make contracts with small packing
concerns throughout the country for
castings were either to be destroyed or
handled in connection with the goods
of the packers.
Monopoly Is Alleged.
The fourth count charges that the
same matters mentioned in the third
count as being in restraint of trade and
commerce constituted an offense on
the part of the packers to monopollze
such trade and commerce.
The fifth count specifically covers
the handling of the by-products, cas-
ings and containers, oleo stocks, Stear-
inc and oils, and describes a conspiracy
in restraint of trade to be effective in
the same way as set forth in the third
count with reference to all of the pro-
ducts mentioned.
The sixth count charges the castings
conspiracy to be an attempt to monop-
Ollie trade and commerce in that COM
modify in the United States and in
foreign countries.
The seventh count sets forth the
particulars concerning the organiza-
ton of the National Packing company
and charges that the object and effect
of that organization was to destroy
competition not only between the
packers who were interested in the
National Packing company, but be-
tween the ten smaller packing COM
panies which were consolidated by the
device of organizing the National
Packing company, and this is described
as a conspiracy in lestraint of trade
and commerce.
The eighth count makes out the or
ganization of the National Packing
company to be an attempt to monopo-
lie the same trade and commerce. The
tenth count relates to similar actions
in connection with meats and by-pro-
ducts.
Soliciting Rebates.
The indictment against Messrs. We'll,
Cusey, Todd and Skipworth of the
Schwarzschild & Sulzberger company,
charges that on the Sd day of Feb
ruary, 1903. the four men conspired
with others to the jury unknown, to
commit an offense against the United
States by soliciting and accepting for
the Schwarzschild & Sulzberger COM
pany from the Michigan Central Rail-
road company the Chicago. Rock ISL
and & Pacific, the Grand Trunk, the
Lehigh Valley, the Boston & Maine
and the Mobile & Ohio, large sums of
money as rebates of the money paid
and to be paid by Schwarzschild &
Sulzberger for the transportation of
goods.
A specific case was mentioned
| against Cusey as having occurred on
January p, 1904, when it is said he
presented to the Michigan Central a
| claim for rebates in favor of Schwarz-
schild & Sulzberger, which claim was
numbered 1853 by the packing com
pany and P167,259 by the Michigan
| Central. amounting to $2,967.8O
A number of other cases similar in
character were mentioned against Cusey
and the other three men. Appended to
| the indictment was copy of a letter
alleged to have been written May 10,
1904. by Cusey to Assistant General
| Freight Agent Bircheet, of the Mobile
| & Ohio, in which he declared that such
! business in Schwarzschild & SuIzberger
| had been giving the railroad had been
diverted until the company received
| consideration from the railroad.
The Penalty
Assistant Attorney General o. H. Pa
gin said in explanation of the indict.
| rnents:
THE indictments are based upon tbs
act of congress approved July q 1890
| popularity known as the Sherman anti.
| trust law. The first section of this act
makes it an offense for any person OF
| corporation to engage in any combina.
ton in the form of trusts or otherwise
| or conspiracy in restraint of trade OIL
commerce among the several states OIL
! with foreign nations. Section 2 make:
it an offense to monopolize or attenp
| to monopolZe any part of such trade Of
commerce. the penalty under each sec
ton in case of conviction is a fine no
exceeding $4,000 or Imprisonment no
exceeding one year, or both, in the dis
erection OF the court. OF course, cor
poration could not be imprisoned and il
this direction the punishment by fine Il
all that can apply. In all other respect!
corporations which are artificial per
sons stand in the same attitude as in
dividuals under the law.
1.-The question as to what CONSTITUTES
a trust is not thoroughly settled. Som
: authorities include in the definition of
trust the idea of placing stocks of diff
ferent corporations in the hands of an
other corporation to be held in trust ant
managed without the interference of tn
separate corporations which are thu
put in combination. If this is the cur
rent definition of a trust the indictmen
in this case does not charge the defend
ants with having formed a trust Their
being no allegation that the stocks O
the large packing companies are held II
trust for the purposes of management
1t is true that the stock of ten smalle
packing concerns previously running il
opposition to the big packers wa
bought up by individuals sonnected witt
the big packing corporations and place
with another corporation organized TO
. the purpose of holding. these stocks-th
National Packing company; but thi
Indictment makes . no direct charg
against the National Packing company
or any of its officers, except such a
were officers of the big packing com
panies.
Concerns Were Bought Outright.
cit is to be observed that when tn
stocks of the smaller companies wer
purchased, not merely the controlling
interests of each of the small com
panies was acquired. but all the stool
was bought up, so that the purchaser
/ were in a position to wipe out of ex
istence the companies so purchased
On this point the National Packin
company differed from the Norther
Securities case, lately decided in tn
5 supreme court of the United States
5 In the latter case only the controlling
: interests of the railroads concerne
t was bought up and put IN the hands O
t a third corporation for management.
2 AS soon as the indictments had bee
handed into court District Attorne
| ATc,..-iror, s,ncronstod that zach of tn