Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-05
BROAD QUESTIONS DECIDED.
Reasons for Ruling.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


Some broad questions of IsIblic policy
were decided by Justice Bat4y in modi-
tying the famous packers consent decree.
First, the decision meats that new
economic circumstances have appeared
as logical reasons for changing the orig
inal court decree This introduces the
idea that the Federal judiciary may
some day take into account similar logic
n handling statutes like the Sherman
antitrust law, about which it is now
being commended that there has been
profound change in economic facts.
Second, the packers obtained the right
hitherto denied them of going into the
packing of products other than meats.
This is a substantial victory for all the
packers. even though the brunt of the
case was borne by Armour & Co. It
means an opportunity to enlarge on the
wfolesaling side so as to use the facil-
titles of the packers for the general dis
tributiop of fruit products.
Third, the packers were denied the
right to go into the retailing business.
because of fear that this would mean
serious competition if not monopoly
rs against the independent grocer.
Justice Bailey did not attempt to de-
eide whether consolidation of units all
the way from the producer TO the con-
sumner is good thing. indicating this
was something for Congress to handle.
Important Precedent Set.
Fourth, it establishes a precedent so
that all consent DEGREES hereafter will
be regarded as subject to modification
by the court upon the hearing Of tes-
timony, and not necessarily as contracts
requiring the consent Of the original
parties to the decree before there can
be modification.
NJ
and Assistant Attorney General John
Lloyd O'Brien, who argued the case for
the Government, is responsible fer this
broadening or rather Qualification of
the meaning of consent DEGREES.
There are some doubts whether the
packers actually wanted to engage In
the retail business. The testimony
showed clearly that they we're not pre-
pared to enter the chain store business,
but that they wanted potential leverage
50 as to be able TO bargain with some
of the large chain store purchasers. The
court was unwilling to grant them this
right and the question is really
academic. II new circumstances should
develop requiring that the packers OBJ
tain the right to 60 into the retail
business as a means Of self-protection
they can 60 into court at any time and
upon a showing of new facts obtain
reconsideration of this particular issue.
Broadly speaking. however, what the
packers really wanted was clariflca-
tion of the old decree and an oppor-
t11nity to 60 forward in the lines of
business products other than meats.
Some of the remarks of Justice Bailey
N his opinion will probably be quoted
fiery often IN the future.
In discussing, for example, the ques-
ton Of giving the packers complete
rights. Justice Bailey said:
whether such complete Indignation
In merchandising from the producer TO
the consumer would produce better
conditions as a whole is an economic
question which is not for the court TO
decide. The policy Of Congress as
shown by the statutes enacted by 1t
and as interpreted by the Supreme
Court is to preserve and stimulate COM
petition and to permit the defendants
10 engage in the retailing Of their own
products would. IN my opinion, have
the opposite result"
Probably the most important result of
The decree will be to revive discussion
as TO the functions Of Government in
reference to distribution problems
particularly as they affect the retail
business. The main ground upon which
modification of the decree was granted
by Justice Bailey was that conditions
have so changed since its entry as 70
render it inequitable TO further enforce
certain of its provisions"
The original purpose Of the decree
was to end the monopoly alleged to have
been acquired over certain commodities
by which the control of the supply and
prices of food was supposed to have
been maintained. The court now In
sists that all the other parts of the de-
cree not now modified but which has
been held in allegiance pending hE2a'
ton shall be complied with promptly In
every respect in which the packers maj
not heretofore have complied.