OCR Text |
Show ILLECALTY OF I THE BEEF TRUST I Unlawful Conspiracy I Against Trade. I Attorney-General Closes Argument Ar-gument Before Supreme H Preferential Freight Bate Host Fruitful Source of Monopoly That Exists. WASH IN. ;t. in. Jnn P -AttomerT-Oen- oral Moody resumed his argument on behalf of the Government before the Su-prema Su-prema Court of tho United States In the case of Swift & . vs. tho Dnltad States. tnmonly known as tho "beef trust ' begun last Krlday Mr Mood said nono of tho agreements ai"- -1 .-f r- to manufa. ture or production, but to commerce com-merco com-merco as distinguished from manufacture or production. Th. y do not accomplish fusion of prop rt Intsreata, bi H tho contrary, adnply ggroanants between strangers to each other's business affect-Ing affect-Ing their freedom of action in certain re-spects, re-spects, and by that considers Hon tho case at bar Is shown to be devoid of those features from which differences of oplti-Ion oplti-Ion arose In tho Northern Securities - as. Ho also polnt.tl OUt dlfferonOOS between this and the Knight and Hopkins eases Thus, hu said, the Inquiry Is narrowed down lo only two questions for thn .1--termination of the court. Whether the commerce In the case was commenced among tho State, and If so, whether the - meats constitute a monopoly or any LaaH It Mr. M ly said It appeared clearly In the petition thai there were threo main subjects upon which ll.-- defendants en fad Into an agreement Facts Shown Taking up th agreement alleged In paragraph . c.f ih. i-tltlon. Mi M.rnflv nuid that, eliminating all the statemenls i by which the pl-ailer liaracteriie.l t - purpose and effect of tho agreement, the I following stato of facts Is clearly shown l"rrsons owning ll. Kto.k and living In other Slates and Territories than those; where the stockyards are situated were accustomed to send such stock to tho va-rlous va-rlous stockyards named, for the purpose of aalo there. Tho defendants, who were severally engaged In tho business of buy-Ing buy-Ing such live stock, for the purpose of slaught. ring iuiiI converting It Into fresh neat, i nter.. 1 h,t . ,ui ni.'iii wiili each other to refrain from bidding against each other, except collaboratively, in i: purchase of such live stock, with tho pur-pose pur-pose and result of suppressing ail compe-Ution compe-Ution In such purchases." An agreement having boon thus clearly alleged, he said, the question arose as t- h tier th- agt-enient r--lal. ) to In terstate coromerci proce led to a i gue tho propnsiUon. saying that the sam sort of bargain Is made for cattle pr-duced pr-duced and owned within the Stato of sale us for cattlo produced and owned In an-other an-other State and sent to th "locus ' or the transaction for the purpose of sale there. Tho Interstate character of the transaction, he aald, where an owner of a commodity living In Htato ship" It to another, continues from tho beginning of iho shipment to and Including tho sale of the commodity. If It has not lost It Identity by the breaking of tho original package In which ll bus been Imported. Interstate Commerce. "It Is contended tbnt the unloading ot the cattle fr-.m the cars In which Ehsjy were transported and their disposition in the various pens In the stockyurds con-stituto con-stituto a breaking of the original pack-ago pack-ago and s commingling of thn property with the domestic property of tho stain PM to such un extent that the purchase and sale of them ore domestic commerce, it Is difficult to treat this contention s-rlously. s-rlously. If tho orlgtnal-packngo ronrsp-tlon ronrsp-tlon hns anv relevancy to this discus-slon. discus-slon. surely It rnu't Is that tho package) which nature Itself has mado are the. fM original packages. . H "The two parties to tho transocUon. th buyOT KM tho sot r, when they agree i,,,n tin. r..ntm.-t r-t Sale. iLT o efTectlng au Int.rstato transacUon. 'When all. or substantially all, of tho buyers In this Interstate market enter into an agreement with resrect to their con-tl con-tl net In making purchases, the agreement thus entered into relates to Interstate II follows that the conduct of thn de-feodantl de-feodantl set f-.rth In paragraph i Is en-llr.l- within their rights, unless) It con-Stitutee con-Stitutee a contruct. combination or con- piracy In restraint of trad or a mo- pjH i ope iiation or attempt to monopolise any part of such commerce. Offense Is Complete. Continuing. Mr. Moody said: "The offense is complete when the com- H blunt Ion H tna-lo The combination Is not cured of lt vlca. If pfrchaneo some agent w, , , nt t- ilhl.l the c ,r-ass.-s l-fore they are sold. Bet not tho offense of fjH these defendants bo ohservecd by any re-Qnement re-Qnement concerning the details of their conduct Controlling Per cent of the try. Ihey alt down at their slaughtering H ni i i king estahllshments, and. with the H mentality of ountless agent and attor- clothing their transactions and sh-lterlng th.ir ralaconduct by cyphers and secret fjTH codes lower or raise, and when thus 1 lowered or raised, fix and maintain B ng tbemselvea, th price of every pound of one of the great a .,. . ll enters and followg This is an unlawful restraint of com- men o among the State-,, and was so ds- H clared In the Add y stone Pipe case, from JjH ira- graph 10, bo said "From this it appears that tho defend-ant defend-ant am all engaged In the common fjH ,fT--rt to obtain unlawful rate, which M roong M th. tnseivca. and that their success con- unlawful rates, but the exclusion of all B outside competitors from obtaining them. M There Is set forth, perhaps artificially, H a combination upon this subject. ! H Competition Can't Endure. jH "MO UOmpetltkm can long endure M agiiint those alio are secretly aad la Ae- I 1 -SSatti BSJBSSJBJBSSSB mm m I&fi fiance of 1hn lnw enjoying rates for ijs th( transportation ot their property m Tf interstate commerce, which constitute Sfg n preference over all othera In the same bH buuneaa No more fruitful rouroe of F nioliopolv nn bo fmillfl t till I In'1 ' n kit - bl mont of" preferential rnt. Th.- history Q J of (he country demonitratea this Pi In conclusion. Mr Moody K.1I1I: H -Thopn nro the mnln gubjecta of the i unlawful conspiracy nmonjt the .Icfend- nnt ithpr are eel forth in the petition. 3 the purpoM of which i t make more if? effective the main conspiracy nn) render j,H it loss eanv for the defendant ihemaelvee Vu to escape from the performance of the tB unlawful conspiracy which they hnve formed. I will now conaldw theM snb-tJ snb-tJ Mill.'irv nRi-eemr nt . ' First In the seventh piracxaph of the 4 petition It appears that the defendants uj have agreed upon this device: in pur- f suance of the conspiracy nnmnc them selves their agents bid up the prlt t Ol live stork it .-ort.iln selected times to an abnormal point. This nnlurnlly Induces the shipment from otht r Btatca of live in 5tock to the points where the price Is fj bid tip In quantities much larger than 'H under normal conditions Thrn. taking BBsal advantnee of this congestion of the mar kets, they refrain from bidding against i h other In the purchase of llvo stock with the result that the producers and owners of the stock an- forced to sell at KTIQ ruinous prices Thus the unlawful con- JJ splracy to refrain from bidding uir-ilnst nfl each other Is made doubly profitable, and the great profit which come from the HiJ transaction In turn Increase the power H8.f of the combination and tend to fasten Nrfl upon tho people a monoply. The con- Kl splracy in this case is ancillary to the Hat conspiracy to refrain from bidding ind to Hh the creation of tho monopoly which this j whole ense discloses Curtail Shipments "Second It Is oIlcRc-d in the eighth paragraph that for the purpose of aiding tn the raising, lo waring and fixing ami Hj maintaining of uniform prices for fresh Vsl meat tho defendants colluslvely re- etrlcted and curtailed shipments ..f me.it s Ba to the various markets throughout the country Kl "The word Volluslvcly' fairly n- I terjiroted, means that they curtailed HIB shipments by agreements with each Hfl other Doubtless such transactions some Kg times may be entirely legitimate. This consideration Is recognized In the decree. HS which exempts from Its prohibition tho HI curtailing of shipments made In good HB9 faith to prevent tho congestion of inor- Mttt ".Third, In paragraph eighth, penalties HIl are Imposed against each other by de- HJC3 fend.-tnts for all deviations from the price HR1 fixed Which needs no apeolal comment HHl "Fourth. In paragraph eighth, also. Ki uniform rules for the giving of credits Hj nre agreed Upon. This of Itself might he HB harmless, but Its purpose iJ ancillary to Hnj the main conspiracy stated in that pare- graph, namely, the .suppression of all Ht. competition among the defendants. They I will not allow themselves even to com- Rl pete for the term of credit which may Hj 1 e given to their respective customers. X purchaser may gn from One to :m- HE other of these defendants and obtain the advantage of a single day s delay In the HK shipment of this bill. HhI "Fifth The same purpose Is behind the HaJ agreement alleged In the ninth paragraph Hh "f the petition, to m.iko ;ind Impure Hj uniform charges for cartage The price Hal of the meat is uniform J the terms of Hfl credit are uniform: even the rates of H1 cartage arc uniform, and nil this comes HJN about by the agreement of the parties Hj and is designed In th most t (ft ctlvi way Hal to prohibit In the minutest detail all pos- Hr s-ible competition in prices. Monopoly In Law H "I have now discuss 'd. .-.i..n:itoy. all Hal the ngreeements and nets of the defend- H ants which were complained of as un- Hal lawful in the petition and enjoined by the decree of the court below. I have 9 endeavored to show with respet t US .Moh PPJJ "f them, that they relate to Interstate PB commerce, and either restrained It or HI I monopolized it within he meaning of the feal law. I should bo unwilling, however, to Ha rest the case here. There Is a larger HZy view of It to be taken than appears from fi the allegations In the petition considered USA separately. Ha "These defendants are engaged In In- Hlf terState commerce. The petition shows a Hj$9 typical case of Interstate commerce.- If Hal the business which they do, exclusive of Ha manufacture, is not interstate commerce. HH there can be no such thin;: outside of Hal transportation. They buy their raw ma- Hf terial. which Is gathered together from HH nil the cattle-raising States and Terrl- Hl torles of the Union and sent to tho great Hta live-stock markets of the country After Hf they have transformed that material Into Hj the finished product, they soil It through Hfl out the LTnlted States. PKl "The comhlnntlon which they have en- Pl tiered Into Is designed to restrain all their PpH business transactions, exclusive of man- PBI ufacture, by the suppression of all com- PBfl petition therein, both In their purchases PHCI and their sales, by the fixing and maln- PBCI talning of uniform prices for their pro- PJPjfl duct. and. so far as possible, uniform PJfl prices fr,r their raw material, and by oh- Hf talning such unlawful advantages as tend Pwl to create a monopoly In a necessity of PU life. They cannot be permitted to In- PPO genTduSly separate the various steps of PBPn their undertaklner and so deal with them HH that (hey cannot be regarded as Inter- pHu s.'aie transactions. pB3l "The court met and answered such a KH device as this In Ult ease of IContagUS Ac pHI Co. s. Lowery iw u. 8., as. There it PR 1 was truly claimed that the sales of unset HI I titles In San Frnncleco by 'the loral lal- pBf j crs were considered by themselves lnter- pWrfl state transactions. The court held that Baal i he sale could not be separated from the pBSi main pnrpor.e of the combination, which Kjl was to flx and malntnln uniform prices Wild for goods which were the subject of lnter- m2 state commerce." Case for the Packers. In Mr. Miller, who Closed the case for the '-1 peckers, said tltat neosssarliy the prsen- tatlon of the ease must be confined within with-in the limits of Hie t.ni of complain! and thai epithets riiill.l lint he appealed to, at attempted by tho Attorney-General, to Ice the case complete iti all ol hi r f Ilk'' character there h.-n! been a dibtlncl agreement, but lere he said, ths ( hargOS were nil general and the BpSClfl" i itl-.ns lnd finite conclusions of lnw or epithets Mr. .Miller took UP the charge of rebates, re-bates, and said the facts must be set up In some wny before the court could take Cognisance Of them. There war. no spccl-tieallon spccl-tieallon add ifs 11 ernsejencf the defendants defen-dants could properly respond only by demurrer "Suppose," asked Judge Harlan, 'the combinations alleged were confined to domestic commerce in the State of Illinois would you consider It a restraint of trade?" Mr. Miller replied In the nofr.itlvc Justice Harlan asked how it would be If there was combination by coal miners to control the price of coal. Mr Miller replied that it would depend largely on the extent Of the combination and also upon whether (here was Stat nntl-trnst lews Th, present iase. he iir-gued iir-gued presents on analogy to the Addy-stonc Addy-stonc Pipe case, for In that case there was a diversion Of territory among manufacturers manufac-turers No such attempt was made In the case of the pickers. Act of Domestic Commerce. Taking up another line, he said, cattle remain in the yards unsold and accordingly accord-ingly Were the piopcrtv of Hie State for taxation an 1 other purposes. Hence th" purchase must be considered nn act of domestic commerce No commerce between be-tween the Slates was Involved Justice White asked a question as to the effect f an agreement t iix the prlc of me:it in another State but Mr Miller contended that the charges In the pending pend-ing case did not go so far as that. With reference to the charge that the packers hid up prices at certain places In order to cause Inert isod shipments, Mr Miller Mil-ler said if this was true It was evident that cattle growers would send to moie desirable markets and thus cheat the packers of the cud sought. In conclusion Mr Miller contended foi the rights Of the defendants to make eitie.Mions It most he remember 1 that agreements relating to Interstate hradc were not prohibited, but that the prohibition extended o combinations in restraint of trade only The purpose of the Sherman bill was to encourage trade and not to shackle It, but If Injunctions were to be granted on such pleas as that before the court, then the end sought snnlv would not be attained He (.included, (.in-cluded, as he had begun, by declavlng that the method of proceeding was without with-out precedent. |