The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-12-16


the grand jury in Salt Lake with regard
10 the food combines is the decision rem
dered by a Denver court that there ex-
lists in that city a vigorous and healthy
grocers' trust. or. rather there did prior
to the time when the court granted the
Injunction prayed for by the attorney gen
eral. A large number were made de-
PENDANTS by the attorney general, who
brought the action in the name of the peo-
pie. The action was the result of a long
fight on the part of some of the news
papers of Denver, and the attorney gen
eral accepted their suggestion that suit
be brought for an Injunction.
In a lengthy address from the bench
Judge q. ". Allen delivered a scathing
rebuke TO all combines. not only in Den
yer. but elsewhere as well. Extracts
from Judge Aliens opinion follow:
Supply and Demand.
Il think it is not extravagant to say
that IL Is the doctrine announced by all
respectable courts that the law of sup
ply and demand should regulate prices,
and especially when the necessities OF ire
are considered. That uniformity extends
10 the announcement that any conduct
by an individual or individuals associated
together which tends to the restraint OF
trade. to the sitting of competition. 10
the establishment of prices upon an ar
bitrary basis, without considering the
matter of supply and demand, is illegal
subversive of public policy and should pc
prohibited. Sometimes such conduct IS
prohibited by statute: sometimes the pun
lie is led to the common law rule OF con
duct as applying to the case and IL dp-
pears 10 be the consensus OF OPINION
among the courts that wherever the leg
lSlature has failed to enact a statue on
the subject the common law Is IN Iofce
and can be applied with as equal
facility by courts of equity ana can De
made as fruitful in the line of lettering
such public conditions so far as unlimited
and unrestrained trade is concerned as
under a statute.
Quotes Marshall Decision.
In the case of the state on the infor-
nation of the attorney general vs. the
Armour Packing company ct al, justice
Marshall. under the facts presented III
that case felt called upon to say;
. Competition is the life of trade. Pools,
trusts and conspiracies to fix or mani
tain the prices of the necessities OF ire
strike at the foundation of governments
instili a destructive poison into the life
of the body polite. wither the energies
Of competitors blight Individual invest,
ments in legitimate business; drive sIndii
and honest dealers out of business TOT
themselves. and make them mere new
ers Of wood and drawers of water Tor
the trust; raise the cost of living ana
lower the price of wages; take from the
average American freeman the ability to
supply his family with necessary, ade-
ouate and wholesome food; force the boys
away from school and into the various
branches of trade and labor. and the girls
into workshops and other avenues or
business. and make them bTeadWlnners
while they are Yet almost infants, De
cause the head OF the house cdnOnl earn
enough TO feed and clothe his family.
Holds There Is Conspiracy.
The court is of the opinion that there
Is Testimony in this case that tends 10
nrove that there does exist an assocl-
ation-a combination of retail grocers IN
this state. doing business under methods
and in a manner that appears 10 result,
at least In restraint OF trade, Which IS
unlawful; under the methods thus PuT-
sued it appears In the evidence IN tnls
case that prices are named. tlXed ana
maintained in numbers, as stated by De
feDdants' counsel. on at least 200 articles
classified as necessities OF ire that Such
prices are fixed without regard 10 the
law of supply and demand. without re-
gard 10 the cost of production or manu-
facture and without regard to the cost
of exposing such articles 10 sale. Such
combination, with such purposes, or dolhs
business in a manner as TO bring about
such results and such consequences, the
Law uniformly prohibits. because II is de-
clared TO be unlawful.
Not Justified.
In the pleas that counsel have made
for the defendants in this case, l fear
that these defendants do not realize the
results and consequences OF thls cont com,
bination. I have thought of II since
counsel have been arguing II, and | fear
they do not know what they do 1t is
claimed and insisted that there is no
purpose of creating a monopoly, or put
ting exaggerated or unlawful prices on
the commodities they sell, or in any way
injuring the public. The answer is is II
simply for self protection that we are
engaged in this business, and We believe
that a grocer ought to make a reason
able profit i'm doing business, and if gro
GERS are allowed 10 sell goods at I'M
reasonable prices the trade is ruined and
many of us would have to 90 out Of
business.
But when counsel says to the court
that il is to the interest of gTocerymen
TO transact business in this manner, the
court in its good conscience. cannot agree
with that conclusion. To be sure the re-
suits of the disturbance or breaking up
of this method of doing business in the
CITY of Denver cannot reOrganiZe or regU-
late the whole country but if every com
munity would establish such rules and
do business on such planes and on such
basis the question would finally be dis
posed of.
Unlawful and Wrong.
THE court cannot be blind to these
consequences ana these results and these
different classified men in business know
they have organized the communities
throughout the country and made these
thouRhtless guileless grOcerymen believe
that IL was to their best interest to act
as the agents TO sell the goods of the
manufacturers at the manufacturers
price and have made them believe that
II was right But it is unlawful. II is