The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1905-02-02
BEEF TRUST B|FFED.
Supreme Court Brands Meat
!, Combine a Conspiracy.
GOES AGAINST PACKERS
Victory for Government Complete,
Says Attorney General Moody.
--- - Strengthens the Sherman
Antitrust Law. ,-.>......, ~.

6nCl-l rust EaWs .s.>.-..> .,..
A Washington special says: The
supreme court of the United States
Monday decided the case of the Uni
ted States vs.. Swift & Co., known as
the beef trust, charging conspiracy
among the packers to fix prices on
fresh meats, etc. The opinion vas
handed down by Justice Holmes and
affirmed the decision of the court be-
low, which was against the pack.
ers.
In his opinion Justice Holmes dis.
cussed at length the various conten.
tions of the packers and disposed of
them individually. He admitted that
some of the charges were less spe
sciic than desirable, but said this was
necessarily true, On account of lne
vast extent of the field covered. He
added that sufficient cause had been
]. shown to prove continued offenses.
and an offense of such nature to
justify the proceeding. The opinion
continued the injunction granted
against the packers under the Sher
man antitrust Law by the lower
courts. The opinion was concurred
In by all the members of the court.
Summarizing the bill, Justice
Holmes says:
TT charges a combination of dom.
inant proportion of the dealers In.
fresh meat throughout the United
States not to bid against each other
In the live stock markets OF the diff
ferent states, to bid up prices for
few days In order to induce cattle
men to send their stock, to the stock
yard. to fx prices at which they will
sell and to that en- dto restrict ship
mants Of meat when necessary, TO es-'
tablashs e. uniform rule OF credit to
dealers and: to keep q black list, ITO
make uniform and proper charges for
carriage and finally to get less tkan
lawful rates from the railroads to the
exclusion Of competitors"
: -. Na..
Referring to the allegation OF lack
OF continuity in the charges, he said:
= .eVFhatsyer may be thought concern
ing The proper construction OF the
statute, bill in. equity is not to be
read and construed as An Indictment
would have been read and construed
hundred years ago, but 1t Is to be
taken to mean what 1t fairly conveys
10 dispassionate reader By fairly
enact use Of English speech. Thus
read, this bill seems 10 US Intended
TO allege successive elements OF
single connected& scheme" - Z
He disposed of the charge of "mui'
tifariousness" in the following Ian
guage:
! ..sThe scheme, as whole, seems
TO be within reach of the law. The
constituent elements. as we have stat
ed them. are enough to give to the
scheme body and, for all that we can
say, TO accomplish it. ver,what'
ever we may think OF them separate
81. when We take them up as distinct
charges, they are alleged sufficiently
as elements Of the scheme.
sIt lis suggested that the several acts
charged are lawful and that Intent
can make no difference. But they
are bound together as the parts OF
q single plan. The plan may make
the parts unlawful Intent is almost
essential to such an attempt. Where
acts are NOT sufficient in themselves
to produce a result. which the Ia"
seeks to prevent-for instance. the
{ monopoly-but require further acts
ii addition to the mere forces OF na'
ture to bring that result to pass. an
intent to bring it to PASS is necessary
IN order to produce dangerous prob
ability that it will happen"