Evening star., 1921-01-04
DECIDES
AGAINST PACKERS

Judge UphoIds Department OF
Justice-Must Give Up
Stockyard Interests.
The Department Of Justice won
sweeping victory over the packers
today when Justice Stafford Of the
District Supreme Court, upholding the
contention of the government that
the decree Of enforcement consented
made effective by receivership and
sale, disapproved all plans submitted
oy the packers for the disposition Of
their stock holdings in stockyards
stockyard terminals and market news
papers. Time to submit new plans is
given. the date to be agreed on.
The Justice served notice on the
packers that any plan. to be accept
able. must provide for an early and
complete Investment Of all obnoxious
holdings. If any delay is to be al
iowed in the actual Investment under
any new plan. it must provide for
complete control by the court in the
meantime. SO that the court may ter
inmate it. should 1t be decided that
the packers were not proceeding with
promptness and vigor.
An extension Of six months is al
lowed by the court in the case Of the
Crescent City stockyard owing to
peculiar circumstances.
Judge StaAoFd's Opinion.
The opinion follows
1.-THE position taken by certain Of
the defendants requires the court to
80 II
cree enjoining the defendants from
continuing to hold stock in the stock
yard corporations 10 q decree which
the court had authority to render
even with the consent of the de-
fendants. This must depend prtnci-
palfy upon the allegations Of fact In
the bill f.complaint xzs ..,.
ti;zi tie dsfsidnnis iys afe nsonotofisins
interState eommefce in the = oducts
OF their packing houses by preventing
the establishment OF competing pack
ing houses through their control Of
houses. which stockyards in turn con-
troll the possibilities for the estab-
lishment and maintenance Of new
packing houses in their vicinity, and
these acts, it Is alleged. tend to create
commerce.. This allegation. to 60 no
further, apparently brings the case
within the purview OF the antitrust
laws. and especially OF the act of Oc-
tober Is. 1914. chapter 323. section z,
36 Stat. 731. which forbids and
one corporation engaged in interstate
commerce Of stock in another cor
poration also engaged in interstate
commerce where the ef1ect Of such
acquisition may be to substantially
lessen competition between the cor
nnpafi0u whnlo Qt0Ck iR aro,,}pA<a
and the corporation making the ac-
QUESTION, or to restrain such COM
merce in any section or community.
or tend to create monopoly Of any
line of commerce
"The word commerce is defined by
the act as meaning interstate COM
merce or foreign commerce, and the
only question left to be considered
upon this point would seem to be
whether they stockyard companies are
cause IL they are so engaged 1t is quite
distinctly. alleged that the acquisition
Of their stock by the packing-house
companies does have the effect to
restrain such interstate commerce not
only in q section or community. but
generally, and does tend to create a
monopoly Of line Of commerce,
namely. the commerce carried on by
the packing houses in the prosecution
Of their own business.
Engaged In Interstate Commerce.
THE nature of the business car
ried on BY the stockyard companies
has been SO often considered by the
courts, among others by the Supreme
Court of the United States (see u. s.
VS.. Union Stock Yards, 226 U. s., 2s6,,
that it is hardly open to question that
such companies are engaged to some
extent, at least, in interstate COM
merce, and the defendants, the Ar
mour and Swift groups. SO treat the
matter in their brief.
THAT holding Of stock by the packing
house companies in the stockyard COM
panies falls within the purview of the
antitrust laws was apparently the view
taken by the defendants when they con-
sented to decree perpetuaily enjoining
them from continuing to hold such stock,
and that now appears to the court to
be the correct view.
'~The Injunction being treated as
valid exercise Of the power Of the court
in view Of the allegations Of the bin
and the consent Of the defendants, the
next question is whether the defendants
can be compelled to obey the injunction
by any other means than by process for
contempt. The eighteenth clause OF the
decree declares that the court retains
Of taking such other action as NAV
become necessary or appropriate for the
carrying out or enforcement Of this de-
cree Under this clause. it is be-
lieved, the court may take any such
action as would be appropriate for the
enforcement Of the Injunction IL the in
junction had been granted upon actual
trial and finding Of the facts alleged in
the bill. 1t follows that the court has
power to enforce the Injunction BY re-
ceivership and sale II that becomes
necessary or appropriate.
should Have Reasonable Time,
But the defendants should be al
lowed a reasonable time. an oppor-
tunity to dispose Of their obnoxious
holdings for themselvea It is con-
tended by the government that such
time and opportunity have been al
lowed already. and this may be true;
but the court 10 ready to solve any
doubt on the subject In favor of the
defendants. Neither the plan present.
ed by the Morris group not the plan
presented by the Armour and Swift
groups is such as can Be approved
by the court in view Of the require
ments Of the consent decree. The de-
fendants must be required TO nle any
othsr plans which they may desire
71S007j0YSI IN ToOos Nj HX-