The San Francisco call., 1910-06-29
Fish TRUST TRIES
TO INVOLVE LABOR
Attorneys Argue That Unions
Are Conspiracies Against
Trade, Despite Statute
Judge ConIey Reserves Decision
as to Validity OF Law For
bidding Combines

The fisil trust is trying 10 save itself
AT The expense of the labor unions,
which ii would brand as consplracles
.s,-ef77;st trade When the demurrers to
me indictments We're argued oefore
Judge TgcnIey vesferda9, the trust tr1eu
10 drag the unions into Inc eohspli4E.
4,-ot-iSf0rS orsfhe antitrust II u so thst
fbe entire law. might be declared. void
ss cnacted- so 1897 the Cartwright
lsst- 5rcorDols tes an older statute by
(which labor Is eNpreSslN neid not 10 oe
a commodity. Exemption as 10 con
sniracv .is made even fuller. IN the
amendments passed in 1909. which also
proz5Ges that producers may commune
TO secure -reasons Bile profits;
In view Of the i7aporrance of the
question. Judge -CoBley asked both sides
10 subnit briefs This means the post
ponement OF further proceedings IN
both the FISH and vegetable cases Tor
another month.
CLASS LEGISLATION OPPOSED
The main point of the argument
made by William NJ. Maiden of the
.1Vesfern. comnanv is that. If the flsh
were caught and handled by a labor
union no Indictment could be found
lIngier the IA ". which. he said, was thus
seen to he class legislation, prohlblteu
by the fourteenth amendment 10 the
federal constitution:
The reply made by Assistant District
ATTORNEY. James r Brennan was that
rbe union would come directly under
the Cartwright law II it went into the
Tsh business. as il would then be han
ding merchandise. He intends 10 cite
cases in which the distinction; is clear y
made between labor and natural prod
ucts or commodities:
ATTACK on ANTITRUST LAW
Madden conceded that If q flaw were
found in the amendments of 1909, by
which prod ucerss were allowed to com
bln6 for a rea sonable profit and labor
was given fuller protection, the origl-
nal act would sti1l be in force. as Bren-
nan ;comtefded But he argued, also,
that the original act was void because
II dared to hold 10 an old definition OF
labor.
The argument was continued by Wal
ter Thompson. T.. = Keeslfng, yohn
O,Donneli. who represented Alexander &
o.DoQneii and Webster & Webster and
bv Henry j. Brodsky for the fish trust
and BIZ Alexander HeyneInann and +. II
HgHebrandt OF; the vegetable trust.
The minor technical points were
argued by .Brodsky. These; related tc
jurisdiction of the court the alleged
obscurity of the Indictments and fail
ljre 10 state sufficient facts or te
charge a crime within the meaning OF
the amended law.
sCHMITZ CASE Quoted
THE Schnaiiz case was brought in t.
Show that the Indictment was faulty il
that il failed 10 set forth the occupa
tions Of the various defendants in th'
fish business.
BroIsky got into deep water in quot
ing from the Sacramento meat cas-
decided by Justice Hart, and the onl,
decision so far. covering the 4Cartwrigh
law The Indictment in the Sacrament
case stated that the butchers had con
spired against one definite man, WIN
was named. The flsh trust iRdictmsn
should likewise have been is detailed
Bpodsky. said.
Brennan then called on the attornei
10 read fslrther in. the decision, wher
Justice Hart said that there was n
need. 10 aIleee acts relating To. tn
accomplishment OF the. conspiracy. s
that tile. part relating TO the man name
was 81 IMPLY testimony,
HEkRING CUT SHORT
Judge Conley asked Bzodslzy a mum
her of pointed questions as to how III
indictEient could be. made clearer. TIL
clause in the law relating TO 1ustifia bl
combinations was not a matter of plead
ing. tile Judge commented, but of proc
He did not interrupt Brennan's argu
inent in reply.
on cutting the hearing short in
call FOR briefs. the Jndge said:
Il am inclined to believe in the sui
fciency of the Indictment on the othe
roints but / want further enlighten
merit on the constitutionality of III
law