Show BEEF TRUST HIT HARD I Federal Judge in Chicago Overrules a Demurrer 1 JUCGE GROSSCUP DECIDES l J 1 Motion Is Granted for a Temporary Tem-porary Injunction jre Declares the Casa Comes Within tho Provisions of the Sherman AntiTrust Law i Chicago Feb lSfl1e socaJed Beef trust case was disposed oC today by Judge Grosscup in the United States Circuit court the demurrer of the packers pack-ers being overruled and n temporary Injunction granted The attorneys for the packers mnde no announcement of their future Intentions They have un ill March 4th to discuss the matter with their principals It they deny the facts upon which Judge Grosscup based his decision the matter might 10 before s master in chancery who will hear the evidence and the case will again be argued before Judge GroUp An appeal ap-peal may be taken In order to hasten the final adjudication of the case It is I not believed likely that the packers will Jet the mutter go by default thus making mak-ing the injunction permanent TEXT OF DECISION Commerce said Judge GrosEcup In Ills decision is the solo or oxhanga of commodities But that which the law looks upon as tho body of commerce Is I not restricted io sneclllc acts of aalo or exchange It Includes tho Intercourse all the Initiatory and intervening acts in ftrumentallllcs and dealings that directly direct-ly brine about the sale or exchange Thus though the solo or exchange is a commercial act ro also Is tlio solicitation of the drummer whose occupation It Is to bring about the sale or exchange The whole transaction from initiation to culmination l cul-mination is commerce IT IS COMMERCE When commerce thus broadly defined Is between parties dealing from different States to bo effected so far as the immediate im-mediate act or exchange goes by the transportation from State to State it is i I commerce between the States > within tho meaning of the Constitution and the statute stat-ute known as the Sherman act But it Is not the transportation that makes the transaction interstate commerce That Ism Is-m adjunct only and only essential I to commerce but not the test The underlying under-lying test la I that tho transaction an an entirety including each part calculated to bring about tho result reaches Into two or more States and that the parties dealing with reference thereto deal from different Slates An Interstate commercial commer-cial transaction In this scnsu Is an affair I arising from different States and centering center-ing In the acts of exchange each essential essen-tial part of the affair holme aa much com zncrco as Is the center With thin definition defini-tion in mind let us see what the transaction i transac-tion made out In the petition Is SEPARATES FACTS INTO GROUPS For the purpose of clear exposition the facts set forth in the petition should be separated into two groups Those that are Intended to bring the transaction within the body of Interstate commerce and those that are intended to llx upon such transaction the character of unlawful unlaw-ful combination and conspiracy Tho first group may be Elated as follow The defendants de-fendants controlling CO per cent of the trado and commerce in fresh meats In the United States buy in the course of their business live Block shipped from points throughout the United States which having hav-ing been converted Into fresh meals Is eold by them at the places whore prepared pre-pared to dealers and consumers In other States or Is sold through their agents located in other Slaton to dealers and consumers In the Stales where tho agents arc located The shipments in the first class of sales arc made directly from tho places where the meat is prepared to the dealers and consumers In othor Stales nnd In tho latter class to the agents In the other States who upon salary deliver de-liver directly to the dealers and consumers con-sumers ODY OF TRANSACTION What may be called the body of these transactions Is twofold It reaches backward back-ward to the purchases of cattle that come to defendants from Stales other than these In which defendants manufacture and it reaches forward to the sale oi meals after conversion to parties dealing with respect thereto from other States followed by shipments into other States Each of these transaction1 constitute in my Judgment Interstate commerce Coming to tho ether branch of the transacllon the sale by defendants like nsult follows Unquestionably it Is Interstate commerce when purchasers from other States buy directly from tho defendants and have the meats shipped to them by tho vendors The Hltus of such a transaction both as to Initiatory Intercourse and as to transportation In furtherance of tho exchange includes a State other than the one from which defendants de-fendants deal WHAT SENT TO AGENTS I think the name la true of meat sent to agents anil eold from their stores Tho I transaction In mien case In reality Is between the purchaser and the agents principal The agents represent thu principal prin-cipal at tho plici where the exchange itakc3 place but the wansactlon as a commercial entity Includes the prlncipil I and Includes him as dealing from his I placo of business Indeed such privity exists between the > principal and tho transaction that ho could at the Instant aa a citizen of another State true upon the transaction In the Federal courts nor havo ram Question that If tho conditions I of this case wero reversed HO that iho I defendants were Invoking the Bhulior Instead In-stead I of cocking to escape the obligations < jf the commerce law the Federal law would bo found equal to tho protection taskcd Because a thing cnn bo taxed by the I 1 Btatc It does not follow that It lies outside out-side the body of interstate con rnree for commerce Interstate 1111 well aa domestic 118 I subject to tho nollcc and taxing power I of the State 110 long as the exorcise of i such power docs not Interfere with the national Governments exclusive right of regulation I WHAT AVEltMENTS ARE Do thu facts sot forth In ibo uecond grouping fix upon tho transacllo oven though tho transaction bo within bIte body of interstate commerce tho character of unlawful combination The averments are as follows That the IcfmidutiLs are engaged In an unlawful combination and conspiracy under tho Sherman act In a directing and requiring their purclriHlni agent at the markets where the live stock vrzu customarily purchasud to refrain from bidding against each other when making ma-king ouch purchases < W In bidding up throuph their amenta the price of live stock for a few days at a limo to Induce large 8hlpmonti und then coasln from bids to obtain tho live stock thus shipped at prices much less lhan It would bring Jin the ropular wny c In agreeing at jncetlngT > between them upon prlcci to bo I adopted by all and restriction upon tho fnionllties of moat shipped d In direct f ing and requiring tholr agontn throughout tho UnStod State to Imooue uniform I charges Zor cartago for dellvyry thereby > I hicreaslnti to dealers mid oonsumora tho I charges for such noats and Ce In mnklig agreements with the transportation com I ponlco for rebates and other discrimina nyc raltB Xo ojio can doubt that these avormcnts otato a case of combination Whether the J I combination bo unlawful or not depends lon whether It Is a restraint of Irade I The r jcnorsl maanlar ot that term 13 no U > ffor I open to Inquiry It has been passed upon carefully by tho Supremo court In the Freight asjoclrulon cast and In tho traffic cane It la clear from thorn that restraint ot trade la not dependent upon nay consideration con-sideration of reasonableness or miroai ubloucsa in tho combination averred nor in it to be touted by the prices that rfiult 1 tllll tllf Pt aotn from the combination indeed I combination combina-tion that loads directly to lower prices to the consumer may within tho doctrine of these discs oven agaInst ito consumer bo restraint of trade nail combination that Icaun dlructly to higher prlccu mayas may-as ngaln tho producer bo reotralnt of trade Tim statute titUs Interpreted has no concern with prices but looku solely to compotltlon and to tin giving of coni potltlon full play by making Illegal any offort at restriction upon competition Whatever combination has the direct nnd necessary effect of restricting competition Is within the moanlnir of tho Shutnan act as now Interpreted restraint of trade IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE Thus defined there cnn be no doubt that tlio arrroemcnt of the defendants to refrain re-frain from bidding against each other In tho purchase of cattle Is combination In restraint of trade So also their Icemen Ice-men to bid up prices to atlmulnte shIp mcnw Intending to cease from bidding when tile shipments have arrived The same result follows when we lurn to tho combination of defendants to Six prices upon and rostrlet the qunntltea of meats shljie l to their agents III their custom era Such agrecu outs can be nothing less than restriction upon competition nod 1 therefore restraint of trade and thus viewed tho pctnltlon as an ontlretv makes out a case under the Sherman act The demurrer Is overruled ind the motion mo-tion for preliminary Injunction granted WHO ARE ENJOINED The defendants against whom the Injunction In-junction Is Issued are Swift Co Cudahy Packirs company Hammond packing company Armour Co Armour Ar-mour Packing company G II Hammond Ham-mond Co Schwarschlld1 Sulaber ger company Nelson Morris it Co partnership J Ogden Armour P A Valentine Calvin lIf Favorite Arthur Meeker Thomas J Connors S Lang don Michael l Cudrhy Albert F Bo scherdl Oustavus F Swift Lewis F Swift Lawrence A Carton D Edwin Jlartwell JosEle P Lyman FtVink E Vogel I Louis Pfnelei William J Russell Rus-sell Albert TI Veeder Henry Vceder Edward C Swift Ferdinand Sulxbcr gel r and W IL Xoycn |