The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-12-21

ers Today.
The court also ruled adversely on the
motion to have the jury instructed to
disregard the allegation of the govern
ment counsel in the opening statement
regarding the absorption of the
Schwarzchild & Sulzberger company
and the New York Butchers Dressed
Meat company by the alleged packers
com bina ton
The court gave the ruling at the
opening of the session and the fact that
the decision sustained the govern
ment's position on every material point
was regarded as u severe blow to the
defense
After the decision of the court was
announced recess was taken until II
I~o'cIOck to give the packers attorneys
opportunity to decide whether they
shall make opening statements or al
low the government to proceed with
its first witness.
In denying the motion of the defense,
Judge Carpenter said:
This Indictment has been attacked
by demurrer and the demurrer over
ruled Obviously if this prosecution
were based solely on counts , and g.
which legally charge the offense and
describe in detail the method by which
it was worked out by the defendants,
a motion for a direct verdict at this
time could not prevail
claimed to have been made of the Ma
tional Packing company are merely
evidentlary circumstances possibly
bearing on the creation or continuance
of the alleged unlawful combination.
Summed up the argument of the
defendants counsel is not that the
opening statement of the government
was too narrow but too broad Be
cause the district attorney outlined
certain evidentiary facts. the govern
others
Defense Is Outlined.
Attorney George T. Buckingham be-
gan the first address to the jury in
behalf OF the defendants when court
reconvened after the recess. He called
attention to the charge in the indict-
ment which accused the defendant
packers Of forming a combine in re-
straint of trade between 1907 and
1910. He pointed out that the su-
preme court Of the United States re-
Gently had construed restraint of
trade" as meaning only those restric-
tions which were undue and unrea-
sCnable.' He asserted that the defense
would prove that it had not exacted
enormous profits at the expense of the
producer and the consumer and denied
8pat the packers controlled or fixed
either the purchase price of cattle or
the sale price of fresh meats.
He said in part.
The defendants do not fix the pur-
cha price of cattle by agreement
The purchase price is fixed by the
market conditions which neither these
defendants nor any one controls or can
control and that purchase price has
risen steadily during the years. The de-
PENDANTS do not fix and control the
sale prices of fresh meats in the mar
kets Those meats are sold under COM
petitive conditions in the markets in
direct competition with dozens and
hundreds of competitors, which make
such a thing impossible and it is not
in fact done Nor are sale prices of
meats by the packers to the meat
dealers inflated or excessive Neither
do the packers reap enormous or in
flated profits.
I'VE will show that the defendants
by the best business methods and the
greatest economies have in fact earned
less than ten per cent per year on
their actual money investment We
viii show that the public has not suf-
fered an injury. but has reaped a great
aenefit by the business operations of
r1a dpfarTanfS"