MEAT TRUST CASE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1400, 28 March 1912, Page 5

MEAT TRUST CASE.

PACKERS NOT GUILTY, By Telegraph—Prefa Association—Copyrteht New York, March 20. At Chicago, ten meat packers who were tried oil charges of violation of the criminal sections of the Sherman AntiTrust Law, wero .found not guilty, after the jury hod deliberated for nineteen hours. The case had lasted several years. A PROTRACTED TRIAL. GAOL FOR BEEF MAGNATES URGED. No one (says the "Literary Digest") knows whether the Chicago jury which is to decide the fate of the ten _ beefpackers accused of violating the criminal section of the Sherman Law will find them guilty or innocent. Though the legal preliminaries have stretched through some nine years, the actual trial is barely under way. Nevertheless, a majority of our newspapers, in some eases, exasperated at what seems to them the too long delay in bringing these trust magnates to justice, in other eases elated that men of such prominence should now be standing in jeopardy of year in gaol or a J:1000 fine, or both, are voicing an insistent demand that if these men are convicted by tho jury, thev lie sent to gaol by Judge Carpenter. This attitude .is also explained by tho very general opinion that here is the Government's first chance to send a group of "big trust magnates" to gaol, and, secondly, that here is the first real test of the criminal clause of the Sherman Antitrust Law. For the original indictments against the meat-men in 1901} were tho earliest attempt to enforce this section of the law, the group of men now on trial represent tho largest interest that has been prosecuted under it, and this is tho first opportunity to show what, if any, bearing the Supreme Court's "rule of rca®>n" has upon this particular part of the much-misunderstood Act.

Such considerations as these, then, impel the New York "World" to the declaration that the proceeding against the Beef Trust is more significant than the prosecution of the Steel Trust, and to the belief that "more than a fine may confront them by way of punishment, if they are found guilty, with a nation waiting (o see somewhere tho 'one really responsible man in jail.'" Here is the chance, similarly asserts the Indianapolis "News," to justify the oft-heard contention that "guilt is personal" by sending some of those trust magnates to gaol; if they arc guilty this must be done "unless the law is to have its teeth drawn." Line of Defence. If, in the course of this trial, notes, the watchful Springfield "Republican," the packers are acquitted, tho criminal I clauses of the Anti-trust Law will be "virtually repealed"; if the packers get off with a fine those clauses will become the "laughing-stock of the country"; hence, "the Radicals who demand that the trusts be exterminated by making 'guilt personal' are correct in their belief that trust magnates must he sent to gaol if the criminal clauses of the law are to be vindicated." Another matter of interest'is found by "The Kepublican" in the fact that tho defence, to the extent that they, have so far shown their hand, will maintain "that if they were parties to a combination in restraint of trade, the restraint was 'reasonable' under tho decision i>i' the United States Supreme Court in the Oil and Tobacco cases"; and if the Judge refuses to admit evidence on tho question of the "reasonableness" of the restraint, then the Supreme Court will surely bo called upon "to determine what bearing this dictum concerning the 'rule of reason' had upon criminal suits , under tho Anti-trust Law." The Defendants, Newspaper readers, who have seen references to the beef caso cropping up at intervals for the last few years, are reminded by the "Digest" that tho first indictment's were handed down July 1, 1903, that "immunity baths" were granted, investigations held.' new indictments roturned, various motions and appeals filed, upheld, and refused, holding up actual trial until December G, 1911. And after the selection of a jury and the opening speeches, the first testimony was taken on December 2G. The ton packers who were on trial for' violation of the criminal clause of the Sherman Antitrust Law, through their connection with the.National Packing Company, a.:e Louis F. Swift, president of Swift and Co. Edward F. Swift, vice-president of Swift and Co. Charles H. Swift, director of Swift and Co. Edward Tilden, president of the National Packing Company. J. Ogden Armour, president of Armour and Co. Edward Morris, president of Morris and Co. Arthur Meeker, general manager of Armour and Co. Francis A. Fowler, director of Swift and Co. Thomas J. Connos, superintendent of Armour and Co. Louis H, Hayman, manager of Morris and Co. iu'.i. 1 1 ..iv.... .".ma