OCR Text |
Show "NO RIGHT TO MEDDLE"; ;:ifi!ERTpBpT Pacfccrs' Combine Is Upheld by IJs Attorney; in Argu-: Argu-: ' mcnt Befprc :Suprcmc Tribunal ; : If ;' WASHINGTON, Jan. 7. Arguments la the ease of Swift & Co. against the United States,' known as the. beef trust conspiracy case, were begun before the Supreme court of the United 8tates Friday Fri-day by Attorney John 8. Miller of CbU , cago In behalf of the packers. " He attacked at-tacked the bill of the Government as insufficient in-sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and 'said that the charges made ' were not facts, but conclusions of laws 4hat the commerce charged was not Interstate or foreign commerce, and that, even if It were interstate commerce, the fact given constituted no violation of law. . . He said that an Injunction had been prayed for and secured from the United States Circuit court for the Northern dls- trlct of Illinois, under the Sherman antitrust anti-trust act. He contended that the case presented an interference in business such as never before had been undertaken. The charges did not specify time and place. He did not believe that the charges could stand. at all, and. he quoted the indictments indict-ments in the whisky case to show that charges much more speclflo had been re garded as insufficient ' "It is alleged. interrupted . Justice White, "that your clients" agenta combined com-bined to refrain from bidding, in order to put prices down, and again agreed te put them up. Do you think there ehould have been a specification of hour - and place?". ?.. "Tea, your Honor." responded" Mr. Miller. 'If the Government - had .tkesa facts, why should if not nave given them '- -- , "Did you ask for a bill of particulars f Inquired Justice Harlan; and Mr. Miller replied in the negative saying that the defendants had filed a demurrer in the case Mr. Miller said that if the packing industry in-dustry could be Interfered with- as proposed pro-posed In this case, the manufacturing industries in-dustries could be -similarly regulated; "and thus you will And," he added, "the Federal courts regulating a considerable part of the commerce or the country." He contended that there was no interstate inter-state commerce involved, because the business tf the packers, including the purchase of rattle and the sale of meat, was confined entirely to Chicago. Explaining the economic situation, Mr. Miller said the ' demand for fresh meat was fairly uniform and, owing to the necessity for maintaining a proper supply sup-ply of an acceptable article, .he said, there should be some understanding among the packers. This was perfectly legitimate, and the Government itself might properly proper-ly assume this supervision. The cattle supply was not so regular as the demand, and to this fact Mr. Miller attributed the fluctuation In prices. Whn Mr. Miller concluded Attorney-, General Moody began. It waa idle, n said, to discuss 'the contention that the charges of the bill are not connected one with another. Be that as it may, the purpose of the suit was single, and all the separate parts of the bill were Interdependent Inter-dependent for the accomplishment of that end. He maintained the constitutionality of the bill asking for discovery of the book of the packers. Mr. . Moody had scarcely began when the court adjourned vntil Monday. At the beginning of Mr.- Miller's presentation pre-sentation of the. case he was interrupted by Justice Holmes, who said that he held stock In the other Union stock yards in Chicago and also in the Kansas City yards, and inquired if they were Involved in the rase. Mr. Miller replied that they were not. |