The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-10-03

Unto the territory any beef cattle ana
3fresh beef other than such beef cattle
land fresh beef as it purchased or
should purchase from them, and would
prevent and discourage by every pos
sible means and manner in its power,
an importations into the Territory of
beef cattle and fresh beef by anyone
else other than the remaining defen-
dants or any of them, and that it was
further agreed that the price so fixed
to be paid TO each of the remaining de-
PENDANTS should not be changed in any
manner by the demand for fresh beef
/ in the localities supplies by the Metro
politan nor by the supply of beef cat
tie available for such localities. save
! by the consent of the remaining de-
| PENDANTS.
| Here is an agreement to do dehnlte
| things and to refrain from doing DEN
! mite things in order to eftectuate the
alleged combination.
| In the case before the court the re
naming defendants can not be COM
| PEELED to engage in the retail trade OF
beef cattle and fresh beef in the Ter
ritory but they may be enjoined against
| com aiming under agreements not to en-
gage in such trade as competitors OF
the Metropolitan, such agreements De-
| ing obviously in restraint of trade;
and so as to the other Stipulations of
the alleged agreement: the covenants
| of the remaining defendants to refuse
| to deal with any and all competitors
of the Metropolitan, and to try to pre-
vent importatiOns by others than
themselves in favor of any such COM
petitor. look like agreements in re-
straint of trade in the Territory; and
the stipulations of the Metropolitan to
frOT he IF
naming defendants at an greed price
which should be the same for each of
them, and to apportion the quantities
purchased among them, and that it
would not produce. deal in or import
beef cattle and fresh beef other than
it purchased or should purchase from
the remaining defendants, and would
try to prevent inportations by anyone
Their than the remaining defendants in
favor of any competitor of the de-
PENDANTS, are obviously for the object
of destroying competition among the
defendants in the beef trade, and ere
ating monopoly in the business
by preventing competition from rival
dealers.
GETTING CONTROL.
"* What material difference is
there between holding secret meetings
and there agreeing upon prices and ad-
herring to the price so fixed until
changed at a subsequent meeting, as
charged in the Swift case, and agreeing
upon a price at which the Metropolitan
should purchase it's entire supply from
the remaining defendants, which should
be the same for each of them, and that
such price should not be changed, save
by the consent of the remaining de-
PENDANTS, either by the supply of or the
demand for beef cattle and fresh beef
in the localities supplied by the Metro
poiitan, as in the case before the court?
Do not the allegations in the
present case show a purpose of obtain
ing the entire control of the Hawaiian
beef trade in Honolulu at least, with
the object of controlling prices?
The defendants briefs are volumi-
nous and able, and 1 have given them
careful study, and have tried to do jus
tice to their contentious and author
tiles under the demurrers so far as the
time at my disposal has allowed. Fl
have neglected to deal with some minor
points, not deeming their consideration
necessary to the disposition of the case.
But reading the statute and the deci-
sions of cases brought under it, 1 can
not svod the conclusion that the bill
disclcses a combination in violation of |
the statute, under both points of the |
construction given above, which are |
intent to restrain trade in a prime |
necessity of life, with power to do So |
and scheme whose inevita BILE and |
main result is to restrain such trade.
Congress, under the menace of a |
widespread tendency to combine great |
business interests for the object of re- |
moving competition and thereby con-
trolling prices. enacted the antitrust |
act and the succeeding acts increasing |
its efficiency, to check and prevent such |
operations and to protect both the con- |
sumner and the independent dealer and |
producer from their injurious and ar
bitrary influences. 1t intended to make |
the act positive and is sweeping in or
der effectively to put an end to the |
evil against which the statute was
enacted.
The demurrers are overruled and the |
defendants are allowed twenty days in |
which to answer
COURT NOTES.
After taking the testimony of DR. |
Mcdonald in the case of the Territory
VS.. George Wainee. yesterday, the jury
and officials of Judge De Bolts court |
We're driven to the Kaiihi Camp to view |
the scene of the alleged murder |
>. G. Dwight has filed an assumpsit |
suit in the Circuit Court against r. |
w. Davis to recover S395.37 principal |
and interest alleged to be due on a |
Judgment obtained in the District Court |
of Honolulu. May IS. 1904
N0Au HDkV CAVC