United States v. Swift & Co.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1903 |
| Citation | 122 F. 529 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SWIFT & CO. et al. |
John K Richards, S. H. Bethea, and W. A. Day, for the United States.
John S Miller and Merritt Starr, for defendants.
The defendants are seven corporations, one copartnership and twenty-three other persons, and the petition is fairly summarized as follows:
1st 'That at the time of its filing they had been and then were engaged in the business of buying live stock at divers points throughout the United States where stockyards existed and slaughtering the same at such places in different states and converting the same into fresh meats for human consumption.
2nd. 'That they had been and then were engaged in the business of shipping fresh meats at the places where prepared, to dealers and consumers in divers other states and territories of the United States and in foreign countries, and shipping the same when so sold, from said places of preparation to such dealers and consumers, pursuant to such sales, and were thus engaged in trade and commerce among the several states and territories and with foreign nations.
3rd 'That they had been and then were engaged in the business of shipping such fresh meats from said points where so prepared, by common carriers to the respective agents of the defendants located at and near the principal markets of such meats in other states and territories and in foreign countries for sale by those agents in those markets to dealers and consumers, which they there sold through their agents and were thus engaged in trade and commerce among the several states and territories and with foreign nations.
4th. 'That of the total volume of trade and commerce among the said states and territories in fresh meats the said defendants together controlled about sixty per cent.
5th. 'That as to such trade and commerce among the several states and territories and foreign nations in fresh meats, the said defendants should, and but for the acts hereinafter complained of would be and remain in competition with each other.
6th. 'That said defendants, in violation of the act of congress of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200) and in order to restrain competition among themselves as to the purchase of livestock necessary to the production of the meats produced by them, have engaged in, and intended to continue an unlawful combination and conspiracy between themselves for directing and requiring their respective purchasing agents at the said several stockyards and markets where they customarily purchase such livestock, which livestock is produced and owned principally in other states and territories of the United States, and shipped by the owners thereof to such stockyards for competitive sale, to refrain from bi ding against each other when making purchases of such livestock, and by these means inducing and compelling the owners of such livestock to sell the same at less prices than they would receive if such bidding were competitive; which combination and conspiracy is in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states, etc.
7th. 'That said defendants, in further violation of said act, and in order to further restrain competition among themselves, which would otherwise exist, as to the purchase of livestock necessary to the production of the meats produced by them, have engaged in and intend to continue an unlawful combination and conspiracy among themselves for bidding up through their agents the prices of livestock for a few days at said stockyards, thereby inducing shippers from other states and territories to make large shipments of such livestock to such stockyards, and then refrain from bidding up such livestock, and thereby obtaining such livestock at prices much less than it would bring in the regular way of trade.
8th. 'That said defendants, in further violation of said act, and in order to restrain and destroy competition among themselves as to such trade and commerce and to monopolize the same, have engaged in and intend to continue an unlawful combination and conspiracy to arbitrarily, from time to time, lower and fix prices, and maintain uniform prices at which they will sell, directly or through their respective agents, such fresh meats to dealers and consumers throughout said states and territories and foreign countries. That the arbitrary raising, lowering, fixing, and maintaining of said prices is effected through the action of divers of their agents in secretly holding periodical meetings, and there agreeing upon the prices to be adopted by said defendants respectively in such trade and commerce, which said prices are notified by letters and telegrams, and are adhered to in their sales, which are made directly, and among other ways; and by collusively restricting and curtailing the quantities of such meats shipped by them in pursuance of such combination, and imposing against each other divers penalties for any deviations from such prices, and establishing a uniform rule for the giving of credit to dealers throughout the said states and territories and foreign countries, and for the conduct of the business of such dealers, with penalties for violations thereof, by notifying each other of the delinquencies of said dealers, and keeping what is commonly known as a 'black list' of such delinquents, and refusing to sell meats to any of such delinquent dealers.
9th. 'And the said defendants, in violation of the provisions of the said act, have engaged in and intend to continue an unlawful combination and conspiracy, to direct and require their respective agents at and near many of the markets for such fresh meats throughout the United States and territories to arbitrarily make and impose uniform charges for cartage for delivery, upon making such sales to dealers and consumers in those markets of the meats shipped to them through said agents by the said defendants respectively from their several points of preparation, thereby increasing the charges for such meats to said dealers and consumers.
10th. 'That notwithstanding the common carriers by railroad subject to the provisions of the laws of the United States for the regulation of commerce, have established and published their schedule of rates, fares and charges for the transportation of livestock, and for the transportation of meats, which are the only lawful rates for such transportation, the said defendants, intending thereby to monopolize the commerce aforesaid, and prevent competition therein, have made and are making agreements and arrangements with divers officers and agents of such common carriers whereby the said defendants were to receive, and will continue to receive, by means of rebates and other devices, unlawful rates for such transportation, less than the lawful rates, which rebates they divide, among themselves, and will continue to do so unless restrained by the injunction of this court, which is a scheme to monopolize, and also a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states and territories and with foreign nations.
11th.
To this petition five of the defendant corporations have filed joint and several demurrers, the grounds of which are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. New York Great A. & P. Tea Co.
...necessary effect of restricting competition is, within the meaning of the act as now interpreted, restraint of trade. United States v. Swift & Co., C.C.Ill., 122 F. 529. In United States v. American Linseed Oil Co., 262 U.S. 371, 43 S.Ct. 607, 67 L.Ed. 1035, the court said (page 388 of 262 ......
-
United Leather Workers' International Union v. Herkert & Meisel Trunk Co.
...324, 367, 368, 33 Sup.Ct. 90, 57 L.Ed. 243; Hopkins v. United States, 171 U.S. 578, 598, 19 Sup.Ct. 40, 43 L.Ed. 290; United States v. Swift & Co. (C.C.) 122 F. 529, 531; Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 23 347; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622, 629, 23 Sup.Ct. 229, 47 L.Ed......
-
Finck v. Schneider Granite Company
...v. McNeeley, 55 C.C.A. 70; Montague v. Lowry, 52 C.C.A. 621; U.S. ex rel. v. C. & O. Fuel Co., 105 F. 93, affirmed 115 F. 610; U.S. v. Swift, 122 F. 529; U.S. v. Northern Securities Co., 120 F. 721. (3) combination created by the contract in this case is void under the common law, with resp......
-
State v. Duluth Board of Trade
...an unlawful combination and conspiracy within the meaning of the Sherman act, because in restraint of trade and commerce. U.S. v. Swift & Co. (C.C.) 122 F. 529, affirmed Swift & Co. v. U.S., 196 U.S. 375, 25 276, 49 L.Ed. 518. The owner of a patented article may impose restrictions upon its......
-
Looking at the Monopsony in the Mirror
...the introduction of the consumer welfare standard effectively placed antitrust at war with itself.").196. United States v. Swift & Co., 122 F. 529 (C.C.N.D. Ill. 1903), modified, 196 U.S. 375 (1905).197. Id. at 530.198. Id. at 534.199. See Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. Am. Crystal Sugar ......