The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1911-12-08
PACKERS WERE VERY SLIPPERY
Whenever They Appeared
to be Cornered They
Made Escape.
Government Contends Var
ious Companies Joined to
End Competition.


the United States Circuit Court for
the Northern District of Illinois TO
the biggest of Uncle Sans suits un-
der the criminal section of the
Sherman antitrust law.
An array Of the most EXPENSIVE
lawyers in the country was on hand
to defend the beef barons OF
charges of conspiracy in restraint
of trade as a penalty for which the
government demands a term in Jail
Nearly eight years of legal ma
neuvering has been occupied in actu-
ally bringing the so-called Beef
Trust" TO trial Almost unremlt-
tingly since 1903, the Department of
Justice has been encamped on its
trail, but the Beast has evaded capture
in jungle of legal obstacles, up un-
| I'll today.
1t was back in 1902 that the federal
government first took a hand in inter-
ference with plans of the packing
magnates. The Department Of Justice
secured an injunction from Judge
Peter s. Grosscup OF the federal court
restraining the packers from organiz-
ing giant combine This was issued
ON February is. and two days later
an investigation was begun. almost
identically the same alleged acts
being under fire as We're cited in the
suit which opened today The fruits
of this investigation were indictments
returned against sixteen packers. on
July ]. Six of the sixteen then named
are among the ten defendants today,
and they were held answerable to the
same charges-combina in re-
straint OF trade
The suit was bitterly fought. Coun-
sci for the packers pleaded immunity
for their clients. on the ground that
back i'm 1904. they had freely in
formed the government of the plans
OF combination, while Commissioner
Of Corporations James r.. Garfield
was investigating the trust situation,
Judge Humphrey agreed with them.
and on March 21. 1908. announced his
famous Immunity bath" opinion
the same that caused the then Presi-
dent Roosevelt to announce his public
disapproval and censure.
Bafhed, the government rested for
a couple of years, but made another
ineffectual attempt to secure indict-
ments In the early part of 1908. In
1903 the grand jury also probed the
combine, but did not return lndict-
ments.
on March 21, 1910, however after
the government had laid careful plans,
the grand jury indicted the National
Packing Company and ten OF its sub
sidiary concerns. on the ground that IL
was a combination in restraint OF
trade. Dissolution OF the trust was
demanded. This suit was under the
civil section OF the sherman law. and
upon evidence they furnished. the
government sought to incriminale
them.
on the ground that this indictment
was faulty Judge Kenesaw NJ. Lam
dis, on June "a, 1910. sustained the
demurrer entered by the packers ami
dismissed the Indictment. At the
same time he directed another in
yestigation by a specially created
grand jury, which on July "a began
It's labors. Probably no jury In the
country went into a case in more de-
tail than the twenty-three members
to whom Judge lands recommended
Investigation Of the packers More
than 200 witnesses were examined.
Some Of them were brought from dis
tant cities. Stormy scenes We're en-
acted behind the closed doors of the
jury-room, and on August II, the in
quisitorial body sprang the first Of its
sensations by returning indictments
charging perjury by Thomas G. Lee,
manager Of the dressed beef sales de-
partment Of Armour & CO., and aileg-
ing that Alfred r. Urion, chief coun-
sci for the same company, had con-
srired 10 destroy evidence in the case
with three other employees. II was
asserted that Urion and the three
stenogra pliers destroyed stenographic
notes Of various transactions when
they discovered those acts were under
Investigation. on August 10, Crion
was arraigned on a citation rule and
reprimanded He was discharged, but
the three other defendants were held
for a further hearing.
The climax of the grand jury's
work came on September 70, when in
dictments were returned. under the
criminal section OF the antitrust law
against the following ten magnates
Lewis F Swift. preslent of Swift q
Company.
Edward II swift, vice president of
Swift 4 Company.
Charles H. Swift director of Swift
& Company.
EDWARD Tndon, president Of the
National Packing Company, and also
Of the firm of Libby, Mcneil & Libby.
Francis A, Fowler of Fowler
Brothers
J. ogden Armour president Of
Armour a Company
Arthur Meeker, general manager Of
Armour Il Company
Thomas j Connors, superintendent
of Armour & Company
Edward Morris, president OF Morris
& Company.
Louis H. Heyman, manager OF
Morris a Company
Three indictments in all, containing
seven counts, We're returned against
these packers. They were charged
with conspiracy TO effect a combl-
nation in restraint Of trade In fresh
meats, and monopolization of that