Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-03-22
INDICTMENTS
Found Against Beef Pack
ing Companies.
Suit in Equity 10 Dissolve
National Packing Co.
Packing Companies counssls viii
Fight Cases to the Limit.

Chicago, March 21.-Eight weeks af-
ter it had begun it's investigation for
alleged violations of the Sherman law,
federal grand jury today returned in
dictments against the National Pack
ing Co. and 10 subsidiary concerns.
Immediately after the announcement
of the indictments before Judge Lam
dis, the government filed suit seek
ing the dissolution of the National
Packing Co. The latter action Is
known as a suit in equity and besides
those indicted, 16 firms and individuals
are made defendants. In a statement
issued on behalf of the National Pack
ing Co, Ralph Crews, its general
counsel. tonight gives some inkling Of
a determination to fight the govern
ment to the limit.
1t is apparent from the bill and the
indictments that the government re-
CARDS the National Packing Co. as the
instrumcntality through which, it is
alleged the packers have been evad-
ing the antitrust law.
The defendants TO the bill are the
National Packing Co., H. G. Hammond
Co., Hammond Packing Co.. Omaha
Packing Co, Anglo American Provi-
sion Co. Fowler Packing Co., United
Dressed Beef Co. st. Louis Dressed
Beef & Provision Co, Western Pack -
ing Co.. Colorado Packing & Provi-
sion Co. New Butchers Dressed Meat
Co. Continental Packing Co. Armour
e Co. Swift & Co., Morris & Co., Ed
ward Tulden, Louis T.. Swift, Edward
f. Swift. Charles Fl. Swift, L. A. Car
I nndnn
mour, Arthur Meyer. Thomas j. Con-
nors, Edward Morris, Thomas f. Will
son and l.. II. Heyman.
The bill for dissolution of the alleged
trust charges that prior to May 10, 1902.
Armour & Co, swift & Co. and Morris
& Co. We're parties to an unlawful
combination to fix prices and restrain
trade in fresh meats; that suit was
brought by the United States under
the Sherman antitrust law to prevent
their violations Of the law and that as
a result Of that suit Judge Grosscup
Feb. is, 1892 filed an opinion saying
that he would grant an injunction In
accordance with the prayer of the
governments bill The final order in
the case. however, was not entered un-
til April 4. 1903.
In the meantime, on March IS. 1903
the National Packing Co., was organ
led, all the stock of which was owned
by the Armour, Swift and Morris 1nS
terests, the parties to the original all
legged combination. ......
On the date of it's organization, the
bill says, there were turned to the Ma
tional Packing Co. by the Armour,
Swift and Morris interests, control of
number of packing concerns which
previous to that time had been COM
petitor, not only of the Armour, Swift
& Morris Cos. but of each other.
These Independent competing con-
Germs, which the bill charges were
turned over to the National Packing
Co. are the concerns named as de-
PENDANTS in the indictment returned
by the grand jury today.
The bill charges that the necessary
effect of the union of these interests in
the management of the National Pack
ing Co.. Is to destroy competition, not
of the National Packing Co., but also
between those companies and the Ar
mour, Swift and Morris Cos.
the prayer of the bill Ii that the
management and control by the Ma
tional Packing Co., Of its subsidiary
companies be declared to be in viola
ton of the Sherman act and unlawful
and void and that each Of the in
dividual defendants and the National
Packing Co., and the Armour. Swift
and Morris Cos, be enjoined from ex-
ercising any control whatsoever over
the subsidiary companies Of the Ma
tional Packing Co.; that the subsidiary
companies may be enjoined from pay
ing any dividends to the National
Packing Co, and the defendants may
be enjoined and prohibited from car
rying on any interstate commerce until
such time as they have satisfied the
court that they are no longer party
to any unlawful combination in re-
.vxt 49,