The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-03-22
They Will Resist Suit
Seeking Cornparly's
Dissolution.
ARE INDICTED BY
JURY TN CHICAGO
National Packing Company and
Ten Subsidiary Concerns Are
Accused Of Having Violated
Sherman Antitrust Law.
Inve stig alton Has
Lasted Eight Weeks.

/ Chicago, Ill, March a1.-Eight week
4 after 1t had begun3its investigation 70
! alleged violations of the Sherman Law
a Federal grand jury to-day returne
indictments againstSthc National Pack
ing Company and ten subsidiary con
. Icerns.
Immediately after the announcement
OF the Indictment before Judge X. NJ
Lands the government filed sui
4 seeking the dissolution ffthc National
Packing Company. The latter action
Is known as a suit In equity, and be
! sides those indicted. sixteen firms and
individuals are made defendants.
7. VIII Fight to Limit.
4 In statement issued on behalf OF
i the National Packing Company, Ralph
4 Crews It's general counsel. tonight
gives some Inkling OF tho determination
to fight the government to the limit
/ His statement follows:
/ t"The company was organized in
March. 1908. for the purpose of eco-
nomic operation OF certain subsidiary
corporations, named Jointly with 1t In
the indictment returned to-day by the
| Federal grand jury for the Northern
| District of Illinois. It's organization
was directed by the best counsel OBJ
tainable. who then believed, and now
believe. that Its organization and the
operation of it's subsidiary companies
| In no way transgressed the provisions
of the Sherman act. and In this respect
| 1t is similar to nearly all the large COR
| porations OF the country.
The total percentage OF the business
| done by the corporations controlled by
the National Packing Company forms
/ l. .
| of the packing industry. This proper
ton could not constitute a monopoly in
any sense OF the word. Instead OF OPP
Grating to restrain the trade Of its
Subsidiary companies, as alleged In
the Indictment, it Is fact that the
companies have all shown a healthy
increase since the formation OF the
National. The company is operated by
tits officers rlirely ssis a. competitive and
independent factor In the trade.
| The indictment returned to-day and
the bill in equity filed to-day by the
district attorney are directed at the
organization and operation of this
company. These operations have at all
times been frank and open, and we are
confident that the courts will sustain
legality,
The Defendants.
The defendants to the bill are the
National Packing Company, G. II. Ham
mond Company. Hammond Packing
Company, Omaha Packing Company.
Fowler Packing Company, Anglo
American Provision Company, United
Dressed Beef Company. st. Louis
Dressed Beef and Provision Company.
Western Packing Company, Colorado
Packing and Provision Company, New
York Butchers Dressed Meat Com
spany, Continental Packing Company,
Armour 6; Co, Swift & Co., Morris &
Co. Edward Tilden, Louis T. Swift, Ed
ward T. Swift Charles P. Swift, L. y.
Carton Frank A. Fowler. J. Ogden Ar
3ners, Edward Morris. Thomas r. Will
son and L. II. Heyman
The bill for dissolution OF the alleged
trus. charges that prior to April 10. 1909,
Armour and Company. Swift and Com
ipany and Morris and Company were
parties TO an unlawful combination to
fix prices and restrain trade In fresh
meat; that on that day. suit was
brought By the United States under
the Sherman antitrust law to prevent
their violations OF the law, and that IS
result OF that suit Judge Grosscup. on
February is, 1902, filed an opinion stat
ing 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-
iii April 4, 1908. In the meantime. on
March 8, 1903. the National Packing
Company was organized, all of the
stock OF which was owned by the Ar
mour Swift and Norris interests, the;
parties to the original alleged combi-
nation. On the date OF It's organiza-
ttion, the bill states. there We're turned
over to the National Packing Company
by the Armour, Swift and Norris inter-
ests control Of 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, The independent
concerns which the billScharges were
turned over, to- tho National Packing
Company, are the concerns named as
defendants In the Indictment returned
ny tho grand Jury to-day.
4aA3iS Destroys Compel ItiUn.
The bill charges .hat the necessary
effect of the union of these interests
in the management of the National
Packing Company Is to destroy conlpe-
titionwnot only among the constituent
companies OF tho National Packing
Company, but also between those COM
panies and the Armour, Swift and Nor
ris companies, The prayer of the bill
is that the management and control
Of the National Packing Company OF
Its subsidiary companies may be de-
clared to boz In, violation OF the Sher-
man act and unlaWful and void and
that each Of tho individual tendants
and the National Packing Company and
the Armour. Swift and Morris Compa-