The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-01-04
COURT FORB|DS.
MEAT COMBINE
viii Accept No Plan Save for
Early Divestment Of Pack
ers' Holdings.
CONTINUED from First Page.)


OF a line OF interstate commerce.
This allegation. to go no further
apparently brings the case within the
purview OF the antitrust laws. and
especially OF the act Of October 10,
1914 &c. 323, section 7. 3S Stat. 1871,
which forbids and makes unlawful the
acquisition by one corporation en-
gagged in interstate commerce OF
stock In another corporation also en-
gagged in interstate commerce
where the effect OF such acquisition
may be to substantially lessen compe-
tition between the corporation whose
stock is so acquired and the corpo-
ration making the acquisition, or to
restrain such commerce In many sec
ton or community. or tend to create
a monopoly OF any line OF commerce.
THE word commerce Is defned
by the act as meaning interstate
commerce or foreign commerce and
the only question left to be con-
sidered upon this point would seem
to be whether the stock-yard COM
panies are engaged in interstate
commerce; because IL they are so
engaged II is quite distinctly al
legged that the acquisition of their
stock by the packing house com
panies does have the effect to re-
strain such interstate commerce
not only in section or commu-
nifty. but generally, and does tend
to create a monopoly of a line OF
commerce. namely, the commerce
carried on by the packing houses
in the prosecution Of their own
business.
1.-THE nature OF the business carried
on by the stock-yard companies has
been so often considered by the courts,
among others by the Supreme Court
of the United States, CSee U. s. v.
Union Stock Yards, 226 U. S. 1850
that 1t is hardly open to question that
such companies are engaged to some
extent at least in interstate commerce
and the defendants. the Armour and
Swift groups, so treat the matter in
their brief. That the holding of
stock by the packing house companies
in the stock-yard companies falls
within the purview of the antitrust
laws was apparently the view taken
by the defendants when they con-
scented to a decree perpetually en-
joining them from continuing to hold
such stock; and that now appears to
MAY ENFORCE INJUNCTION.
1.-THE injunction being treated as a
valid exercise of the power Of the
court in view of the allegations Of the
bill and the consent Of the defendants,
the next question is. whether the de.
PENDANTS can be compelled to obey the
injunction by any other means than
| by process for contempt. The eigh-
| teenth cluase Of the decree declares
that the court retains jurisdiction of
| the cause for the purpose of taking
such other action as may be.
come necessary or appropriate for the
decree Under this clause, it is be-
lieved, the court may take any such
action as would be appropriate for the
enforcement OF the injunction II the
injunction had been granted upon
actual trial and finding of the facts
alleged in the bill. IT follows that the
court has power to enforce the injunc-
ton by a receivership and sale if that
becomes necessary or appropriate.
But the defendants should be al
lowed a reasonable time and op-
portunity to dispose Of their obnoxi-
Gus holdings for themselves. 1t Is
commended by the Government that
such time and opportunity have been
allowed already: and this may be
true; but the court is ready to solve
any doubt on the subject in favor Of
the defendants. Neither the plan pre-
scented by the Morris group nor the
plan presented by the Armour and
Swift groups Is such as can be ap-
proved by the court in view Of the
requirements Of the consent decree.
The defendants must be required to
file any other plans which they may
desire to present within a short time
to be fixed by the court.
BARS CONSOLIDATION.
Elm order to facilitate future prog
ress 1t is considered best to state
here that the court cannot see its way
to approve any plan for the consolida-
ton OF the yards. whether by a hold
ing company or otherwise.
ANY plan to be acceptable must
provide for an early and complete d.
vestment by the defendants of all the
obnoxious holdings.
IF any delay is to be allowed in the
actual Investment under the plans thai
may be proposed such plans must pro-
vide for complete control by the court
in the meantime Of all such stocks,
and must leave the matter in the
hands of the court in such wise that
the plan itself may be terminated at
any time, IL the court shall determine
that the defendants are not proceed
ing hereunder with promptness and
vigor.
"Clause thirteen is considered as
applying only to those corporations
in which the defendants hold a con-
trolling interest.
IAN extension of six months may
be allowed in the case of the Cres-
cent City Stock Yard owing to the
peculiar circumstances there ex-
listing.
UNLESS the defendants are able
to propose plan that will meet
the foregoing requirements the
court will feel obliged to appoint
officers to take the title to all the
stock in question and to hold the
same subject to the order of the
court until suitable arrangements
can be made to have 1t disposed OF
in accordance with the terms and
purposes Of the decree"
4 nHyn NrYyrntaV HAyNvuDVy