Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1910-03-25
RETURN OF TRUE BILLS FOLLOWS
CLOSE OF GRAND JURY'S
INVESTIGATION
SIMS FILES BILL IN EQUITY.
Federal Authorities Believe National
Packing Company Has Been Used
to Violate Law.
ARMOUR, SWIFT AND MORRIS.

CHICAGO, H., March 21.-Simul-
taneously with the return of indictments
today against the National Packing COM
pany and ten subsidiary organizations
charging violation of the antitrust law,
United States District Attorney Sims
filed also u bill in equity asking for disso-
luton of the alleged trust. The bill
names not only the National Packing
company, but the Armour, Swift and
Morris companies and the individuals
who dominate and control these con-
Germs.
1t is apparent from the bill and the
indictments that the government regards
the National Packing company as the
fundamentally through which, it is al
legged, the packers have been evadlng the
antitrust law, and by means of which
they have been making the combination
effective.
1t is admittedly the opinion of the
department of justice and the grand
jury, which at Judge Lands direction
has been investigating the meat industry
for the last two months, that II the Ma
tional Packing company Is broken up
the alleged evils of this combination VIII
be remedied. AT any event the attack
of the government is focused on the
National Packing company as the nu-
cleus of the so-called meat combination
The defendants TO the bill are the
National Packing company, u. II. Ham
mOnd company, Hammond Packing COM
panl, Omaha Packing company, Anglo
American Provision company, Fowler
company, st. Louis Dressed Beef and
Provision company, Western Packing
company, Colorado Packing and Proyi-
sion company, New York Butchers
Dressed Meat company, Continental
Packing company, Armour 4 Co., Swift
Louis +. Swift, Edward f. Swift,
Charles III. Swift, l.. A. Carton, Frank
A. Fowler, j. Ogden Armour, Arthur
Meeker, Thomas J. Connors, Edward
Morris Thomas L. Wilson, and l.. B.
Heyman.
Unlawful Combine Charged.
The bill charges that prior to May
10, 1902, Armour 4 Company, Swift X
Company and Nelson x Company Were
parties to an unlawful combination to
fix prices and restrain trade in fresh
meats; that on that day suit was brought
by the United States under the Sher-
man antitrust law to prevent their yiO-
lations of the law, and that as a result
of that suit Judge GrOSscup on Febru
airy %, 1902, filed an opinion stating that
he would grant an injunction i'll accord
ance with the prayer of the governments
bill. The final order i'll the case, how
ever, was not entered until April 4, 1903
la the meantime, on March IS, 1908,
the National Packing company was or
ganized, all of the stock of which was
owned by the Armour. swift and Morris
interests, the parties TO the original al
legged combination.
~, 40 do Of itC, MI +bo
states. there were turned over to the
National Packing company by the Ar
mOur. Swift and Morris interests con-
troll Of i number of packing concerns
which previous to that time had been
competitors not only of the Armour
Swift and Morris companies, but of each
other These independent competing
concerns. which the bill alleges were
turned over to the National Packing
company, are the concerns named as de-
PENDANTS in the Indictment returned by
the grand jury today.
The bill charges that the necessary eff
feet of the union of these interests in
the management of the National Pack
ing company is to destroy competition,
not only among the constituent com
panies of the National Packing com
pany, but also between those companies
and the Armour. Swift and Morris com
panleS.
Prayer OF the Bill.
The prayer of the bill is that the man
ageInent and control by the National
Packing company of the subsidiary cor
porations may be declared to be i'll yio-
lation of the Sherman act and unlawful
anu void and that each of the individual
defendants and the National Packing
company, and the Armour, Swift and
Morris companies may be enjomed from
exercising any control over the sub
salaries of the National company; that
the subsidiary companies may be en-
joined from paying any dividends to the
National Packing company, and that the
defendants may be enjoined and pro-
hibited from carrying on any interstate
commerce until such time as they have
satisfied the court that they are no
longer party to any unlawful comblna-
ton in restraint of trade.
The effect of the bill, if the govern
ment is successful in the suit, will be to
dissolve the National Packing company
and turn back the management of the
subsidiary companies TO the original own
ers No individuals are named in the
indictments returned today, the following
corporations being specified.
G, H. Hammond company, Michigan
Anglo-American Provision company ILL.,
nois
Omaha Packing company. Illinois.
Fowler Packing company, Illinois.
Onileu DfeSSeu DteI toiupduy, New 1OrS-
Western Packing company, Denver
Colorado Packing and Provision company,
Denver.
New York Butchers Dressed Meat COM
pany, New YORK.
Hammond Packing company. Illinois,
National Packing company, Illinois.
The finding of the grand jury on which
the indictment is based form the basis Of
the allegations in the bill filed for the
dissolution of the alleged combination.
TO RAISE THE EUCALYPTUS.