New-York tribune., 1919-12-19

would not say either whether this vol
Qntary dissolution was to be taken as
indicating that other ARRANGEMENTS of
che same sort might be made in other
cases where antitrust suits are pend
ing.
VIII Push Prosecution
1T became known to night that men,
bers Of the Federal Trade Commission
refused to sign the agreement between
the Attorney General and the packers.
In letter to President Wilson, made
public tonight, the commission de-
clares its intention of carrying through
legal proceedings it has begun agash st
the packers and of others in process Of
formulation.
I'VE should say to you that in this
examination (of the packers)," says the
letter, "the commission has brought out
certain facts having to do with laws
with the minstration Of which it is
particularly charged. In a number of
these matters formal proceedings al
ready have been instituted. In others
FORMAL proceedings are in process Of
formulation. These things the COM
mission will carry forward in due
course in the orderly prosecution of its
work"
The feeling between the packers and
the commission has been exceedingly
bitter Ior months. What effect it will
have on the relations between the De-
partment of Justice and the commission
was not foreseen. but 1t cannot fail to
add to the undercurrents of confuson in
the Adm abstraction.
The commission takes the view that
nothing can be gained by signing an
armistice," and that it had gathered
sufficient data to make it most unpleas-
ant for the packers before a grand
jury. 1t feels a compromise at this
time puts it in an undesirable light
by vindication through its own legal
proceedings.
Second Peaceful Trust Dissolution
The principal antitrust suit now in
che courts is that against the United
States Steel Corporation, although
there are several involving the control
over anthracite coal fields by the So
called anthracite railroads.
This is the second peaceful dlssolu-
ton of a combination which the de-
partment believed to be violating the
antitrust laws brought about b. ne
gotiation with the Department of JUS
tice during the present Administration.
Associate Justice McReynolds. when he
was Attorney General, conducted ne
gotiations with the American Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company which
ended by it's giving up its control over
the Western Union Telegraph Company
and abstainng from any further eff
forts to gain control of Independent
telephone companies and make other
concessions.
In the telephone case the negotia-
tions were finally approved by Presi-
dent Wilson There was nothing in
the first statement of Mr. Palmer to-
night to indicate that President Will
son had taken part in the negotiations
with the packers, but it was generally
believed that the settlement was &C
ceptable to him.
Forty-eight Corporations Affected
The Palmer settlement apparently
was approved by Senators who have
been most active in bringing about in
vestigations of their businesses, and
although there was talk to- might about
an inquiry into it by Congress sional
committee it did not materiaize in
resolution to-day.
In summing up the decree which it
expects to ask from Federal Court
the Department of Justice shows the
injunction is to operate against eleven
Armour corporations and ten individuals
connected with them; against fifteen
Swift corporations and ten individuals;
and twelve individuals connected with
them; against five Cudahy corporations
and eight individuals and against two
other corporations and two individuals.
The list Of defendants includes:
Armour defendants:
Corporations Armour e. Co. Of 1lli-
nois, Armour & Co. of New Jersey, Ar
mour & Co. Of Kentucky Armour & Co.
of Texas. Armour & Co., Ltd, of Louis
lana; Anglo American Provision Com
pany Of Illinois, Colorado Packing and
Provision Company, of Colorado; Fowl
er Packing Company, of Maine; Ham
mond Packing Company, of Illinois;
New York Butchers Dressed Beef Com
pany. of New York; Atlantic Hotel
Supply Company.
Indy Indvidgals y, j. ogden e dtnon Armour' Armoo,r
Laurence II. Armour, Arthur Meeker,
R. j. Durham, F. Edison White, Fred
erick w Croll George M. Willetts and
George B. Robbins.
Swift defendants, corporations and
individuals:
Swift & Co, of Illinois; Swift G. Co.,
of West Virginia, Edward F. Swift;
Swift G. Co, Maine, Charles F. Swift;
Swift G. Co, Inc, Kentucky, Gustavus
Harold II. Swift; Swift Beef Company
Maine, Alden B. Swift; United Dressed
Beef Company. New York, George H.
Swift; J. j. Huntington & Co., Inc
New Jersey, Laurence A. Carton; Bim-
bier Company, New Jersey, Frank S
Hayward; c. H. Hammond Company
Michigan, Charles A. Peacock; Omaha
Packing Company, Kentucky, Wilfred
W Sherman; Plankinton Packing Com
pany. Wisconsin, Wellington Leavitt;
Sturtevant g. Haley, j. NJ. Chaplin;
Beef and Supply Company, Maine
William B. Tranor; W. NJ. Pond Pack
ing Company, Illinois; Van Wagner &
Schickhaus Company, New Jersey;
Western Packing Company, California;
Hammond Beef Company, Michigan;
Omaha Meat Company, California;
Garfield Commission Company, New
Jersey; H. c. Derby Company, New
York; Metropolitan Hotel Supply Com
pany, New York; Vermont Supply Com
pany, Hotchkiss Beef Company. F. &
c. Crittenden Company; George Ny
Company, II. L. Handy Company Swift
Coates Company; Andrews. Swift
Co., New England Dressed Meat ant
Wool Company, North Packing AM
Provision Company. John P. Squir
Company, Maine; John P. Squire Com
pany, Inc, Massachusetts; John /