Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-03
COURT D|SM|SSES
PACKERS APPEAL
Appellate Tribunal Declines
to Decide Question InvoIv-
ing 1920 Consent Decree"

The District Court of Appeals today
in an opinion by Justice Josiah y.
Van Orsdel granted the motion of the
Department of Justice to dismiss the
:appeal by Swift & Co. and Armour 4
to. two of the leading packing cor
porations of the United States, which
had sought to reverse Il decision OF
Justice Jennings Bailey of the Dis
tlict Supreme Court refusing to de
clare a nullity the consent decree OF
February q, 1920, by which the pack
crS agreed to divorce the meat indus
try from all una'.ied commercial en-
terpriseS.
The court sustained the contention
of Assistant United States Attorney
General William j. Donovan that II
lacked jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal, because the eXpediting act in
antitrust suits in equity provides a
direct appeal to the United States
Supreme Court.
u. S. Supreme Court Sole Arbiter.
The packers must now look to the
United States Supreme Court Tor re
dress If they would have the consent
decree vacated. The operation OF the
decree is now under suspension
through the granting of q petition OF
The California CannerieS Co, which
claims the decree was consented to ny
Armour Il Co. without regard to the
contract with the canneries company
o dispose of so per cent of the can
nerieS product.
Charles Evans Hughes made
strong argument against the validity
of the decree when the case was
heard in the appellate court, but the
court does not pass OH the merits of
the decree since It reached the de-
cision that it lacks jurisdiction.
The fundamental question, says
Justice Van Orsdel. is whether the
Supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbia is District Court OF the
United States, where Congress has
placed exclusive jurisdiction to re-
strain and enjoin violations of the
antitrust acts. If it is, then it is
clear that under the eXpediting act
direct appeal lies to the United States
Supreme Court. If it is not, then
such actions will not lie in the equity
division or any other division of the
court, and in that contingency, so
far as any proceeding in equity is
concerned. the antitrust acts would
he held unenforceable within the Dis
trict of Columbia. OF course, in the
latter view there would be no juris-
diction in the Court of Appeals to
entertain an appeal, the court points
out.
Quotes Congress Declarations.
Numerous declarations have been
made by Congress, says the court,
that the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia is a District Court
of the United States, possessing juris-
diction as such. These declarations
may be sufficient, he states. by i'm
plication to convey the jurisdiction
specifically imposed upon the District
Courts by the antitrust act. If they
are, declares the court, 1t logically
follows that the right of appeal pro
vided by the expediting acts would
likewise attach. 1t is suggested, how
ever, that if Congress intended to ex-
tend this jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court of the District Of Columbia it
would have said so.
1t remains for the United States
Supreme Court. concludes the opinion,
to determine on appeal whether or
not the case was properly brought in
the District of Columbia and, il so.
whether it should have been brought
in the equity term or in the special
District Court term. In any event,
the court declares, the appeal is TO
the Supreme Court and is not here"