A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_&_Co._v._United_States below:

Swift & Co. v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Beef Trust" redirects here. For Billy Maxwell's large-sized female burlesque entertainers, see

Beef Trust (burlesque)

.

1905 United States Supreme Court case

Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the federal government to regulate monopolies if it has a direct effect on commerce. It marked the success of the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt in destroying the "Beef Trust". This case established a "stream of commerce" (or "current of commerce") argument that allows Congress to regulate things that fall into either category. In particular it allowed Congress to regulate the Chicago slaughterhouse industry. Even though the slaughterhouse supposedly dealt with only intrastate matters, the butchering of meat was merely a "station" along the way between cow and meat. Thus, as it was part of the greater meat industry that was between the several states, Congress can regulate it. The Court's decision halted price fixing by Swift & Company and its allies.[1]

The case originated in 1902 when President Theodore Roosevelt directed his Attorney General Philander Knox to bring a lawsuit against the "Beef Trust" on antitrust grounds using the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The evidence at trial demonstrated that the "Big Six" leading meatpackers were engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and divide the market for livestock and meat in their quest for higher prices and higher profits. They blacklisted competitors who failed to go along, used false bids, and accepted rebates from the railroads. The six companies involved were Swift, Armour, Morris, Cudahy, Wilson and Schwartzchild. Together, they did $700 million a year in business and controlled half of the national market, and up to 75% in New York City.

When they were hit with federal injunctions in 1902, the Big Six agreed to merge into one National Packing Company in 1903 to continue to control the trade internally. The case was heard by the Supreme Court in 1905, shortly after it struck down a similar consolidation and the Northern Securities case of 1904. Speaking for the court, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. broadened the meaning of "interstate" commerce by including actions that were part of the chain where the chain was clearly interstate in character. In this case, the chain ran from farm to retail store and crossed many state lines.

The federal government's victory in the case encouraged it to pursue other antitrust actions. Public opinion, outraged by Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle, which depicted horribly unsanitary conditions in Chicago's meatpacking plants, supported the decision. Congress followed by passing in 1906 both the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act.[2][3]

  1. ^ Gordon (1984)
  2. ^ "The Supreme Court upholds Prosecution of the Beef Trust," in Frank N. Magill, ed., Great Events from History II: Business and Commerce Series Volume 1 1897–1923 (1994) pp 107–111
  3. ^ Walker (1906)
United States antitrust law Statutes and
regulations Supreme Court
case law Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 1 case law Sherman Antitrust Act
Section 2 case law Other Sherman
Antitrust Act cases Interstate Commerce Act
case law Clayton Antitrust Act
case law FTC Act case law Robinson–Patman Act
case law Other cases Other federal
case law Ongoing
litigation ‡ Related topics

‡ date of filing

U.S. Supreme Court Article I

case law

Enumeration Clause

of

Section II Qualifications Clauses of Sections II

and

III Elections Clause

of

Section IV Speech or Debate Clause

of

Section VI Origination Clause

of

Section VII Presentment Clause

of Section VII

Taxing and Spending Clause

of

Section VIII Commerce Clause

of Section VIII

Dormant Commerce Clause Others Coinage Clause

of Section VIII

Legal Tender Cases Copyright Clause

of Section VIII

Copyright Act of 1790 Patent Act of 1793 Patent infringement case law Patentability case law Copyright Act of 1831 Copyright Act of 1870 Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 International Copyright Act of 1891 Copyright Act of 1909 Patent misuse case law Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 Lanham Act Copyright Act of 1976 Other copyright cases Other patent cases Other trademark cases Necessary and Proper Clause

of Section VIII

Habeas corpus Suspension Clause

of

Section IX No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause

of Section IX

Contract Clause

of

Section X Legal Tender Cases Others Import-Export Clause

of Section X

Compact Clause

of Section X

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3