Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1909-02-26
EFFECTS OF THE
 ANTITRUST CASE
Supreme Court of United States, In Sustaining the Arkansas Antitrust Case, Gives States Power of Enf0rc. ing Laws of This Character.
'ne CHjlDReN's FAv0RiTe TONIC.

In an opinion by Judge White. de- uvered Tuesday the supreme court of the United States upheld the val idity of the Arkansas antitrust law of 1905, in the case of Hammond Packing Company vs. the State of Arkansas.
 The Hammond Packing Company, along with the Armour. Swift. Cud- ahy and Morris companies was sued under the antitrust law in 1905. These sujss were brought by Robert L. Rogers, the then attorney general; Lewis Rhoton, the then prosecuting attorney, and w. l.. Terry, w. NJ. Lewis, F. c. Fulk and James II. Stew enson, special counsel employed by the attorney general.
 The complaints charged that the defendant companies were members of a prohibitive combination for the control of prices of meat and asked that they be penalzed under tho act and excluded from the state.
 H An Order For Examination.
 In October, 1906, the attorneys for the state. proceeding under Section 8 of the antitrust act, procured from the Pulaski circuit court an order for the examination before a commission CT in Chicago, of certain officers, agents and employees of the defendant companies. That section of the anti trust act makes it the duty of a cor poration against which suit Is brought under the act, upon the granting of such an order of examination. to pro- duce it's officers, agents and em- ployes, and it's books and papers. as demanded by the state. When the time fixed for the appearance Of the witnesses before the commissioner arrived, counsel for state were pres ent in Chicago, and the production of J. Ogden Armour. the first witness called, being ordered by the commis- sioner. tho Hammond Packing Com pany refused to produce him, or any of it's officers or agents or any books or papers.
 It was then agreed between the at torneys for the state and the attor- news for the packing companies that the Hammond case should be made a test of the validity of that section of the antitrust law which provided for the production of the witnesses ana documents under the control of the defendant and that the remaining cases should await the decision of the higher courts upon the validity Of this provision Thereupon, proceed ing under Section 9. of the act. coun- sel for state filed in Pulaski circuit court the report of the commissioner showing the refusal of the Hammond Packing Company. as above set out. And on motion of the attorney general the answer and other pleas of the de- fendant company were stricken from the files and judgment rendered against it by default in the sum Of $1o,o0o.
 Appeal to Supreme Court.
 From this judgment the company appealed to the supreme court of Ar Kansas, where in January, 1907. an opinion was rendered affirming the Judgment of the lower court and sus- taining the validity of Sections and g of the antitrust act From this Judgment the company by writ of err TOT appealed to the supreme court "f the United States. where the case was argued and submitted February 724. 1908, by Judge W. E. Hemingway. of Little Rock, and John A. Johnson, of Philadelphia. on behalf of the pack ing company. and by Lewis Rhoton. F. G. Fulk and James H. Stevenson on behalf of the state.
 The contention made by the pack ing company was that Section s. in providing for an order compelling the production of witnesses and books by the defendant violated the search and seizure, equal protection and self-in- crimination guarantees of the federal constitution and that Section 9, by its provision for the rendition of de- fault judgment after striking from the files the pleas of the defendant, was yielative of the due process of law provision of the federal constitution
 Justice Whites Decision.
 Justice Whites decision was against the packing company on all of these points. He gave especial considera-