Evening star., 1932-05-07
PACKER VERDICT
VIEWED AS FINAL
Supreme Court Decision Is
Last Word in 30-Year
Controversy.
BY DEAN DINWOODEY.

The Supreme Court Of the United
States has blocked the final effort Of
the National Packers to extend their
business into other lines. The court
has denied them the privilege Of deal
ing at wholesale in food products other
than meat.
BY handling groceries, the packers
had hoped to distribute their tremen-
dous overhead costs among diversified
products. This avenue of increasing
their revenues is now definitely closed.
The decision of the court in the now
historic packers case concludes 80
years of litigation and investigation
centering around the decree entered in
1920 by consent of the National Pack
ers, under which they were prohibited,
among other things, from holding any
interest in stock yards, railroads or
newspapers, from handling food prod
ucts other than meat, and from selling
meat at retail.
ia Products Involved.
The high tribunal refused to lift or
even relax the restraint against engag-
ing in the business of manufacturing,
selling or transporting any Of ia
enumerated food products, principally
fish, vegetables, fruits and groceries, to
which, wisely or unwisely, the packers
submitted in 1920. They chose" it
was stated, ito renounce what they
might otherwise have claimed, and the
decree of court confirmed the renun-
citation and placed it beyond their re-
call"
Thus the famous decree Of 1920.
though consented to by the packers
under the express agreement that 1t
did not constitute an adjudication that
the packers had violated the Sherman
antitrust act, remains today the OBJ
stacle preventing packer competition in
the wholesale grocery business.
The denial of the petition of Armour
& Co. and Swift g. Co. Is based on the
asserted ground that since the entry OF
the original decree no changes have
occurred in the food marketing in
dustry to remove the fear OF "old-time
abuses Nothing "in the rise OF the
chain stores" is said to eradicate the
ancient peril.
Size and aggression induced the
fear in 1920 that the defendants (the
national packers, If permitted to deal
in groceries would drive their rivals to
the wall. Size and aggression leave
the fear unmoved today" the courts
opinion stated.
The majority opinion Of the court was
written by its newest member, Justice
Cardozo. Two members, Justices Butler
and Van Devanter, dissented. Chief
Justice Hughes and Justices Sutherland
and Stone did not participate in the
case.
Refers to Competition.
The minority declared that the di-
versification of the business OF the de-
PENDANTS which would be permitted ny
modification of the injunction is in
harmony with present legislative ten
denotes in the business Of producing
and selling meat, groceries and otoer
articles of food. In all branches OF
such activity there is strong and &cnFa
competition The use by defendants nL
their employees and facilities for the
sale and distribution Of groceries as well
as meat would not give them any un-
due advantage over their competitors.
Defendants should be permitted more
eficiently to use their help and equip
ment to lessen their operating expense.
That makes for lower prices and so Is
in the public interest"
The packers must now face not only
the adverse effect Of the Supreme
Courts ruling. but also the results
which will flow from the enforcement
of the consent decree. Though entered
in 1920. it has never been in full force,
having been suspended by the ensuing
litigation. 1t now becomes operative.
The decision Is considered by the
antitrust division of the Department
of Justice as its greatest victory in sew
eral years. The real victors, however,
so the packers say, are the wholesale
grocers. Not only the packers but other
groups, principally livestock producers,
declare they are losers by the court de-
cision.
(Copyright, 1932)