THE MOENING OREGONIAN, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1905.
EFTRUSTDECISION
:ul! Text of the Supreme
Court's Pronouncement
COMBINE CONTRARY TO LAW
Agreement of Packers Is Held to Pre
vent Lawful Competition New
Ground Taken on Inter
state Commerce. ,
In response to inquiries from several
quarters, The Oregonlan prints herewith
the full text of the decision of the Su
preme Court cf the United States against
the Beef Trust, viz.:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
This is an appeal from a decree of the
Circuit Court, on demurrer, granting an
injunction against the appellants' com
mission of alleged violations of the act of
July 2, 1S90, chapter 647 (26. Stat. 209).
"to protect trade and commerce against
unlawful restraints and monopolies." It
will be necessary to consider both the bill
and the decree. The bill is brought
against a number of corporations, firms
and individuals of different states, and
makes the following allegations:
First The defendants (appellants) are
engaged in the business of buying live
stock at the stockyards in Chicago,
Omaha, St Joseph, Kansas City, East St.
"Louis and St Paul, and slaughtering such
livestock at their respective plants In
places named. In different states, and
converting the livestock into fresh meat
lor human consumption.
Second The defendants "are also en
gaged in the business of selling" such
lresh meats, at the several places where
they are so prepared, to "dealers and con
sumers in diverse states and territories
of the said United States other than
those wherein the said meats are so pre
pared and sold," as aforesaid, and in the
Mstrict of Columbia and in foreign coun
tries, "and shipping the same meats.
.jvhen so sold from the said places of
their preparation over the several lines
transportation of the several railroad
bmpanies serving the same as common
rriers to such dealers and consumers.
irsuant to such sales."
Chird The defendants also are en-
red in the business of shipping such
sh "meats to their respective agents at
; principal markets in other states, etc..
sale by those agents in those markets
iealers and consumers.
fourth The defendants together con-
. about six-tenths of the whole trade
.commerce in fresh meats among the
es, territories and District of Colum-
6nd
i But for the acts charged would
free competition with one another.
Jlxth In order to restrain competition
wnong themselves as to the purchase of
livestock, defendants have engaged In.
'and Intend to continue, a combination
for requiring, and do and will require.
their respective purchasing agents
at the stockyards mentioned, where
defendants buy their livestock (the
same being stock produced and
owned principally in other states and
si ipped to the yards for sale) to refrain
from bidding against each other "except
perfunctorily and without good faith,"
id b this means compelling the owners
of such stock to sell at less prices than
thty would receive if the bidding really
was competitive.
Seventh For the same purpose the de
fendants combine to bid up, through their
agents the prices of livestock for a few
days at a time, "so that the market re
ports will show prices much higher than
the state of trade w'ill warrant" there
by Inducing stockowners In other states
to make large shipments to the stock
yards to their disadvantage.
Eighth For the same purposes, and
to monopolize the commerce protected by
the statute, the defendants combine "to
arbitrarily, from time to time, raise,
lower and fix prices, and to maintain
uniform prices at which they will sell"
f dealers throughout the states. This is
effected by secret periodical meetings,
where are fixed prices to be enforced until
changed at a subsequent meeting. Tho
prices are maintained directly, and by
colluslvely restricting the meat shipped
by the defendants, whenever conducive
to tho result by imposing penalties for
deviations by establishing a uniform
rule for the giving of credit to dealers,
etc., and by notifying one another of the
delinquents of such dealers and keeping
a blacklist of delinquents, and refusing
to ?ell meats to them.
Ninth Tho defendants also combine to
make uniform charges for cartage for
thn delivery of meats sold to dealers and
consumers in th orkets throughout the
es. etc, shipped to them by the de
fendants, through the defendants' agents
at the markets, when no charges would
have been made but for the combination.
Tenth Intending to monopolize the
said commerce and to prevent competi
tion therein, the defendants "have all and
each engaged In and will continue" ar
rangements with the railroads whereby
the defendants received, by means of re
bates and other devices, rates less than
the lawful rates for transportation, and
were exclusively to enjoy and share this
unlawful advantage to the exclusion of
competition and the public By force of
the consequent Inability of competitors to
engage or continue in such commerce, the
defendants are attempting to monopolize,
have monopolized and will monopolize
the commerce in livestock and fresh
meats among the states and territories
and with foreign countries.
Eleventh The defendants are and have
been in conspiracy with each other, with
the railroad companies and others un
known, to obtain a monopoly of the sup
ply and distribution of fresh meats
throughout the Ijnited States, etc
And to that end defendants artificially
restrain the commerce and put arbitrary
regulations in force affecting the same
from the shipment of the livestock from
the plains to the final distribution of the
meats to the consumer. There Is a
prayer for an Injunction of the most com
prehensive sort against all the foregoing
proceedings, and others, for discover' of
books and papers relating directly or in
directly to the purchase or shipment of
Svestock. and the, sale or shipment of
fresh meat and for an aneswer under
oath. The injunction issued is appended
in a note.
TERMS OF FEHl'ET U AI, INJUNCTION.
Packers Are Allowed to Agree on Certain
Details Meld Not to Involve a Possible
Restralt of Trade.
And now. upon motion of the said attor
ney, the court does order that the pre
liminary injunction heretofore awarded in
tMs cause, to restrain the said defendants
and earh of them, their respective agents
tand attorneys, and all other persons acting
,j.neir Denau. or in Denair of pithm- nt
i, or claiming so to act from entering
taxing parr, in or periormlng any con-
, combination or conspiracy, the pur
jjr effect of which will be, as to trade
nmerce in fresh meats between the
states and territories and th tic
Columbia, a restraint of trad in
Ration of the Drovislons of th att
ingress approved July 2, 1S90, entitled,
"An act to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and monopo
lies," either by direction or requesting
tncir resrecuve agents to retrain from
biddlnsr azainst each other n tho r...
chase of livestock; or colluslvely and by
agreement to refrain from bidding against
each other at the sales of livestock; or
by combination, conspiracy or contract
raising or lowering prices or fixing uni
form prices at which the said meats will
be sold, either directly or through their
respective agents; or by curtailing the
quantity of such meats shipped to such
markets and agents; or by establishing
and maintaining rules for the giving of
credit to dealers in such meats, the effect
of which rules will be to restrict com
petition; or by imposing uniform charges
for cartage and delivery of such meats
to dealers and consumers, the effect of
which will be to restrict competition; or
by any other method or device, the pur
pose and effect of which Is to restrain
commerce as aforesaid; and also from vio
lating the provisions of the act of Con
gress, approved July 2, 1S90, entitled, "An
act to protect trade and commerce against
unlawful restraint and monopolies" by
combining or conspiring together, or with
each other and others, to monopolize or
attempt to monopolize any part of the'
trade and commerce in fresh meats among
the several states and territories and the
District of Columbia, by demanding, ob
taining or, with or without the connivance
of the officers or agents thereof, or of
any of them, receiving from railroad com
panies or other common carriers trans
porting such fresh meats in such trade
and commerce, either directly or by means
of rebates", or by any other device, trans
portation of or for such meats, from the
points of the preparation and production
of the same from livestock or elsewhere,
to the markets for the sale of the same
to dealers and consumers in other states
and territories than those wherein the
same are so prepared, or the District of
Columbia, at less than, the regular rates
which may be established or in force oa
their several lines of transportation, un
der the provisions In that behalf of the
law of the said United States for the
regulation of commerce, be and the same
Is hereby made perpetual.
But nothing herein shall be construed to
prohibit the said defendants from agree
ing upon charges for cartage and deliv
ery and oiner Incidentals connected with
local sales, where such charges are not
calculated to have any effect upon com
petition In the sales and delivery of
meats, nor from establishing and main
taining rules for the giving of credit to
dealers where such rules in good faith
are calculated solely to protect the de
fendants against dishonest or Irresponsi
ble dealers, nor from curtailing the quan
tity of meat shipped to a given market
where the purpose of such arrangement in
good faith Is to .prevent the over-accumulation
of meats as perishable articles
in such markets.
Nor shall anything herein contained be
construed to restrain or Interfere with the
action of any single company or firm, by
its their officers or agents (whether
such officers or agents are themselves
personally made parties defendant hereto
or not) acting with respect to its or their
own corporate or Arm business, property
or affairs.
SCHEME WITHIN REACH OF LAW. 4
Vagueness in Some Specifications Inevitable,
but Whole Structure of Charge Is Clear
and Sustained.
To sum the bill up shortly, it charges a
combination of a dominant proportion of
the dealers In fresh meat throughout the
United States not to bid against each other
In the livestock markets of the different
states, to bid up prices for a few days, in
order to induce the cattlemen to send
their stock to the stockyards, to fix prices
at which they -will sell and to" that end
to restrict shipments of meat when neces
sary, to establish a uniform rule of credit
to dealers, and to keep a blacklist to
make uniform and Improper charges
for cartage, and, finally, to get less than
lawful rates from the railroads to the
exclusion of competitors. It is true that
the last charge is not clearly stated to
be a part of the combination, but as it is
alleged that the defendants have each and
all made arrangements with the railroads
that they were exclusively to enjoy the
unlawful advantage, and that their Intent
In what they did was to monopolize the
commerce and to prevent competition, and
in view of the general allegation to which
we shall refer, we think that we have
correctly stated the purport of the bill.
It will be noticed further that the Intent
to monopolize is alleged for the first time
In the eighth section of the bill as to
raising, lowering and fixing prices. In
the earlier sections the Intent alleged Is
to restrain competition among themselves.
But after all the specific charges there is
a general allegation that the defendants
are conspiring with one another, the rail
roads and others, to monopolize the sup
ply and distribution of fresh meats
throughout the United States, etc, as has
been stated above, and it seems to us
that this general allegation of Intent col
ors and applies to all the specific charges
of the bill. "Whatever may be thought
concerning the proper construction of the
statute, a bill in equity is not to be read
and construed as an indictment would
have been read and construed a hundred
years ago. but it Is to be taken to mean
what It fairly conveys to a dispassionate
reader by a fairly exact use of Englih
speech. Thus read this bill seems to us
intended to allege successive elements
of a single connected scheme.
We read the demurrer with the same
liberality. Therefore wo take It as ap
plying to the bill generally for multifa
riousness and want of equity, and also to
each section of it which makes a charge,
and to the discovery. The demurrer to
the discovery will not need discussion in
the view which we take concerning the
relief, and therefore we turn at once to
that
The general objection is urged that the
bill does not set forth sufficient definite
or specific facts. This objection la serious,
but it seems to us inherent in the nature
of the case.
The scheme alleged Is so vast that it
presents a new problem In pleading. If,
as we must assume, the scheme Is enter
tained, it Is, of course, contrary to tho
very words of the statute. Its size makes
the violation of the law more conspicu
ous, and yet the same thing makes It im
possible to fasten the principal fact to a
certain time and place. The elements,
too, are so numerous and shifting; even
the constituent parts alleged are, and
from their nature must be so extensive
In time and space that something of the
samo Impossibility applies to them. The
law has been upheld, and therefore we
are bound to enforce It, notwithstanding
these difficulties.
On the other hand, we equally are
bound by the first principles of justice
not to sanction a decree so vague as to
put the whole conduct of the defendant's
business at the peril of a summons for
contempt We cannot lssiy a general In
junction against all possible breaches of
the law. We must steer between these
opposite difficulties as best we can.
The scheme, as a whole, seems to us
to be within reach of the law. The con
stituent elements as we have stated
them, are enough to give to the
scheme a body, and, for all that we can
say, to accomplish it Moreover, what
ever we may think' of them separately,
when we take them tip as distinct charges
and they are alleged sufficiently as ele
ments of the scheme, it Is suggested that
the several acts charged are lawful; and
that Intent can make no difference. But
they are bound together as the parts of
a single plan. The plan may make the
parts unlawful. (Alkens vs. Wisconsin,
193 U. S. 194, 206.) The statute gives this
proceeding against combinations in re
straint of commerce among the states
and against attempts to monopolize the
same. Intent is almost essential to such
a combination, and is essential to such
an attempt
LAW LOOKS AT INTENT.
Restralt of Interstate Trade an Inevitable
Consequence of Facts Proved.
Where acts are not sufficient In them
selves to produce a result which the law
seeks to prevent for instance, the mo
nopolybut require further acts in addi
tion to tho mere forces of nature to
bring that result to pass, an intent to
bring it to pass is .necessary In order to
produce a dangerous probability that It
will happen. Commonwealth vs. Peaslee,
177 Mass. 167, 272. But when that Intent
and the consequent dangerous probability
exists, this statute, like many others and
like the common law in some cases, di
rects Itself against that dangerous proba
bility, as well as against the completed
result What we have said disposes inci
dentally of the objection to the bill as
multifarious. The unity of the plan em
braces all the parts. ,
One further observation should be made
The combination alleged embraces re
straint and monopoly of trade within a
single state, and to that extent is not
within the reach of the laws, but Its
effect upon commerce among the states
is not accidental, secondary, remote or
merely probable On the allegations of
the bill the latter commerce no less, per
haps even more than commerce within a
single state, is an object of attack. See
Laloup vs. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640.
641; Cructher vs. Kentucky, 147 U. S. 47,
59; Allen vs. Pullan Company, 191 U. S.
171, 179, ISO. Moreover, It Is a direct ob
ject it is that for the sake of which the
several specific acts and courses of con
duct are done and adopted. Therefore
the case is not like United States vs. C.
B. Knight Company, 156 U. S. 1, where
the subject matter of the combination
was manufacture, and the direct object
monopoly of manufacture within a state.
However likely monopoly of commerce
among the states in the article manufac
tured was to follow from the agreement,
it was not a necessary consequence nor
a primary end. Here the subject matter
is sales and the very point of the combi
nation Is to restrain and monopolize com
merce among the states In respect of
such sales. The two cases are near to
each other, as sooner or later always
must happen where lines are to be drawn,
but the line between them Is dintinct
Montague vs. Lowry, 193 U. S. 2S.
So again the line is distinct between
this case and Hopkins vs. United States,
171 U. S. C78. All that was decided there
was that the local business of commis
sion merchants was not commerce among
the states, even If what tho brokers were
employed to sell was an object of such
commerce. The brokers were not like
tho defendants before United States,
themselves the buyers and sellers. They
only furnished certain facilities for the
sales; therefore, there again trie effects
of the combination of brokers upon the
commerce were only indirect and not
within theact Whether the case would
have been different if the combination
had resulted In exorbitant charges was
left open. In Anderson vs. United States.
171 U. S. G04, the defendants were buyers
and sellers at the stockyards, but their
agreement was merely not to employ
brokers or to recognize yard traders who
were not members of their association.
Any yard trader could become a member
of the association on complying with the
conditions, and there was said to be no
feature -of monopoly In the case; It was
held that the combination did not directly
regulate commerce between the states,
and, being formed with a different Intent,
was not within the act The present case
is more like Montague vs. Lowry. 193 U.
S. 38.
For the foregoing reasons we are of the
opinion that the carrying out of the
scheme alleged by the means set forth,
properly may be enjoined, and that the
bill cannot be dismissed.
MONOPOLY eF COMMERCE INTENDED.
Transportation of Cattle for Sale in Anolher
State Held to Be Interstate Trade.
So far it has not been necessary to con
sider whether the facts charged in any
single paragraph constitute commerce
among the states or show an Interfer
ence with it There can be doubt, we ap
prehend, as to the collective effect of all
the facts. If true, and if the defendants
entertain the intent alleged. We pass
now to the particulars and will consider
the corresponding parts of the Injunction
at the same time.
The first question arises on the sixth
section. That charges a combination of
independent dealers to restrict the com
petition of their agents when purchasing
stock for them in the stockyards. The
purchasers and their slaughtering estab
lishments are largely In different states
from those of the stockyards, and the
sellers of the cattle, perhaps It is not too
much to assume, largely In different
states from either. The intent of the
combination Is not merely to restrict com
petition among the parties, but as we
have said, by force of the general allega
tion at the end of the bill, to aid In an
attempt to monopolize commerce among
the states.
It Is said that this charge is too vague,
and that It docs not set forth a case of
commerce among the states. Taking tip
the latter objection first commerce
among the states Is not a technical legal
conception, but a practical one, drawn
from the course of business. When cat
tle arc sent for sale from a place In one
state, with the expectation that they will
end their transit, after purchase, in an
other, and when In effect they do so, with
the only interruption necessary to find a
purchaser at the stockyards, and when
.this is a typical, constaritly-recurring
course, the current thus existing is a
current of commerce among the states
and the purchase of the cattle is a part
and Incident of such commerce What
we say Is true, at least of such a pur
chase by residents of another state from
that of the seller and of the cattle. And
we need not trouble ourselves at this
time as to whether the statute could bo
escaped by an arrangement as to the
place where the sale In point of law Is
consummated. See Norfolk & Western
Railroad vs. Sims, 191 U. S. 441. But the
sixth section of the bill charges an inter
ference with such sales, a restraint of
the parties by mutual contract and a
combination not to compete in order to
monopolize. It Is Immaterial if the sec
tion also embraces domestic transactions.
It should be added that the cattle in a
stockyard are not restrained" even to the
extent that was held sufficient to war
rant taxation in American Steel and Wire
Company vs. Speed. 1902. U. S. 500. But
It may be that the question of taxation
does not depend upon whether the article
taxed may or may not be said to be in
the course of commerce between tho
states, but whether the tax so far affects
that commerce as to amount to a regula
tion of It
The injunction against taking part in
a combination, the effect of which will
be a restraint of trade among the states
by directing the defendant's agents to re
frain from bidding against one another
at the sales of livestock. Is justified so
far as the subject material Is concerned.
The Injunction, however, refers not to
trade among the states In cattle, con
cerning which there can be no question
of original packages, but to trade in
fresh meats, as the trade forbidden to
be restrained, and it Is objected that the
trade In fresh meats described In the sec
ond and third sections of the bill Is not
commerco among the states because the
meat is sold at the slaughtering places,
or when sold elsewhere may be sold in
less than the original packages. But the
allegations of the second section, even if
they Import a technical passing of title
at the slaughtering places, also import
that the sales are to persons in other
states, and that the shipments to other
states are part of the transaction "pur
suant to such sales" and the third sec
tion Imports that the same things which
are sent to agents are sold by them, and
sufficiently Indicates that some at least
of the sales are of the original packages.
Moreover, the sales are by persons In one
state to persons in another. But we do
not mean to Imply that the rule which
marks the polntat which state taxation
or regulation becomes permissible neces
sarily Is beyond the scope of Interference
by Congress In cases where such Inter
ference is deemed necessary for the pro
tection of commerce among the states.
Nor do we mean to intimate that the
statute under consideration is limited to
that point Beyond what we have said
above, we leave those questions as we
find. them. They were touched upon in
the Northern Securities Company's case,
1903. U. S. 157.
We are of opinion, further, that- the
charge in the sixth section Is not too
vague The charge Is not a single agree
ment but of a course of conduct Intended
to be continued. Under the act the duty
of the court Is, when applied to, to stop
the conduct The thing done, and In
tended to be dene. Is perfectly definite
with the purpose mentioned, directing the
defendants' agents and inducing each
other to refrain from competition In bids.
The defendants cannot be ordered to com
pete, but they properly can be forbidden
to give directions or to make agreements
not to compete (See Addyston Pipe &
Steel Company vs. United States, 175 U. S.
21L) The Injunction follows the charge.
No objection was made on the ground
that It Is not confined to the places speci
fied in the bill. It seems to us, however,
that It ought to set forth more exactly
the transactions In which such directions
and agreements are forbidden. "The trade
In fresh meat referred to should be de
fined somewhat as It is In the bill, and
the sales of stock should be confined to
sales of stock at the stockyards named,
which stock Is sent from other states to
the stockyards for sale or Is brought to
those yards for transport to another
state.
GROSSCUP INJUNCTION MODIFIED.
Packers Entitled to Precise Statement of
Things Forbidden. '
After what we have said, the seventh,
eighth and" ninth sections need no spe
cial remark, except that the cartage re
ferred to in section 9 Is "not an Indepen
dent matter, such as was dealt in Penn
sylvania Railroad vs. Knight 192 U. S. 21,
but a part of the contemplated transit
cartage for delivery of the goods. The
general words of the Injunction, "or by
any other method or device, the purpose
and effect of which is to restrain com
merce as aforesaid," should be stricken
out The defendants ought to be in
formed accurately as the case permits
what they are forbidden to do. Specific
devices are mentioned In the bill, and they
stand prohibited.
The words quoted are a sweeping in
junction to obey the law, and are open
to the objection which we stated at the
beginning that It was our duty to avoid.
To the same end of deflnlteness. as far as
attainable, the words "as charged in the
bill" should be Inserted between "dealers
In such meats" and "the effect of which
rules" and two lines lower, as to charges
for cartage, the same words should be
Inserted between "dealers and consum
ers" and "the effect of which."
The acts charged In the tenth section,
apart from the combination and the in
tent, may, perhaps, not necessarily be"
unlawful, except for the adjective which
proclaims them so. At least we may as
sume for purposes of decision that, they
are not unlawful. The defendants sever
ally lawfully may obtain less than the
regular rates for transportation. If the
circumstances are not substantially sim
ilar to those for which the regular rates
are fixed. Act of February 4, 18S7, chap
ter 104, 2, 24 St 379. It may be that the
regular rates are fixed for carriage In
cars furnished by the railroad companies
and that the defendants furnish their
own cars and other necessities of trans
portation. We see nothing to hinder them
from combining to that end. We agree,
as we already have said, that such a com
bination may be unlawful as part of the
general scheme set forth In the bill, and
that this scheme as a whole might be
enjoined. Whether this particular com
bination can be enjoined, as it is. apart
from its connection with the other ele
ments. If entered Into with the intent to
monopolize, as alleged. Is a more delicate
question. The question Is how It would
stand If the tenth section were the whole
bill. Not every act that may be done
with Intent to produce an unlawful result
Is unlawful, or constitutes an attempt It
Is a question of proximity and degree
The distinction between mere preparation
and attempt Is well known in the crim
inal law. Commonwealth vs. Peaslee, 177
Mass. 267, 272. The same distinction is
recognized In cases like the present Uni
ted States vs. E. C. Knight Company, 156
U. S. 133; Kidd vs. Pearson, 12S U. S. 1,
23, 24.
We are of opinion, however, that such a
combination is within the meaning of the
statute. It Is obvious that no more power
ful instrument of monopoly could be used
than an advantage in the cost of trans
portation. And even If the advantage Is
one which the act of 18S7 permits, which
is denied, perhaps Inadequately, by the ad
jective "unlawful," still a combination to
use It for the purpose prohibited by the
act of 1SS0 justifies the adjective and takes
the permission away.
It only remains to add that the foregoing
question does not apply to the earlier sec
tions, which charge direct restraints of
the trade within the decisions of the
court and that the criticism, of the de
cree, as If it ran generally against com
binations In restraint of trade or to mon
opolize trade, ceases to have any force
when the clause against "any other
meu-od or device" is stricken out So
modified, it restrains such combinations
only to the extent or certain specified
devices which the defendants are alleged
to have used and intend to continue to
use
Decree modified and affirmed.
HEW JERSEY'S REVENUE.
Unblushing Boast of a Full Till From
Acknowledgedly Dubious Sources.
Chicago Chronicle.
Edward C. Stokes, tho new Governor of
New Jersey, stated somo facts In his In
augural address which arc of Interest to
people outside of his state
Congratulating the people of New Jer
sey on their gocd fortune, he stated that
at the close of tho last fiscal year the bal
ance In the State Treasury was over
52,940,000. The ordinary receipts for the
same year, he said, amounted to more
than J4.302.000.
The point of the Governor's congratula
tion lay in the fact stated by him that "of
the entire Ihcqme of the government not
a penny was contributed directly by .the
people," and that nearly 78 per cent of it
"came from railroads and the business
companies domiciled In our state."
These business companies, as we all
know, are mostly companies originating
outside of the state and doing most of
their business elsewhere. The big steel
corporation Is a conspicuous example. By
way of formal compliance with the law
these companies have offices In New Jer
sey, which are within easy reach of their
main offices, Just across the river In the
City of New York. These companies are
the source of most of the revenue of which
the people of New Jersey indirectly con
tribute only a trifle
Happy people! Governor Stokes reminds
them that the revenue of which they con
tribute not a penny directly not only suf
fices, to meet all the ordinary expenses of
the state government, including those for
charities and education, but also to de
velop "a magnificent road system, em
bracing one-third of the macadam or state
roads of the United States."
The people of New Jersey have reason
to feel about as comfortable as a certain
suburb of Chicago which gets enough out
of racetracks and a lot of saloons to cover
nearly all its public expenditures. . . .
Governor Stokes' inaugural is a sname
less confession of Jersey selfishness and
of a purpose still further to shape Its In
corporation laws not for the good of the
general public, but to get the utmost reve
nue out of them and by making the trusts
at home otherwise in New Jersey.
Increase Booth-Kelly Stock.
EUGENE, Or., Feb. 5. (Special.) The
annual meeting and election of officers of
the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company result
ed in the re-election of all the old of
ficers F. H. Buck, president; J. F.
Kelly, vice-president; G. H. Kelly, secre
tary; R. A. Booth, .general manager and
treasurer. The capital stock of the com-
Si
Special Terms
Morris Ch
You can't begin the week in a better way than by buying one of these
chairs. They are substantially built of selected golden oak the
frames are well put together and have polish finish. They have
spring seats and backs, upholstered in fine velours your choice of
green or red. These chairs are all fitted with automatically adjust
able backs no troublesome rods to get out of place. You can adjust
the back to five different positions while sitting in the chair. The
more you use them the 'more comfortable they grow. f
$9
MONDAY,
CREDIT
GOOD
pany was Increased from $1,500,000 to
52,000.000. No other business of import
ance was transacted at the meeting, al
though some changes are contemplated in
the working of the mills.
TASEET BARBARISMS.
Reasons for the Abrogation of the
Tax on Art, Books and Lumber.
From an Editorial In the February
Century.
The tariff on art cannot be defended
by any of the customary arguments of
an economic sort. It is not desired by
those whom It "protects; It accom
plishes nothing In the upbuilding of our
Industries; It does not result in the ul
timate cheapening of something to the
consumer; and thousands of protection
ists de.sire Its abolition. If such an ab
surdity could be conceived as the pro
tection of our portrait painters, for In
stance, through the tariff. It could be
done only by excluding foreigners from
plying their brushes within the boun
daries of the country. To read the law,
one would think we had "Old Master"
factories in full blast, but in perpetual
Infancy, unable to compete with the old
masters of other countries. So weak,
indeed. Is the economic basis of this tax
that its defenders have nothing to urge
in its favor but the argument that paint
ings and sculpture are luxuries, like
champagne and diamonds, and that their
importers should be made to pay round
ly. This Is "tariff for revenue only" with
a vengeance; it is certainly a tariff for
nothing else. Meanwhile the educational
and civilizing value of art Is left wholly
out of the account.
There Is probably no one thing that has
CASTOR I A
3?or Infants and Children.
The Kind You Have Always Bought
Bears the
Signature
GOLDEN OAK
SI.OO DOWN
5Qc A WEEK
TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY
so retarded the general development of
taste In this country as this tax. The In
fluence of a correct public taste upon the
production of art Is Immense. As the
recent comparative exhibition of Ameri
can and foreign art has indicated, wo
have admirable painters; but, with few
exceptions they have formed their taste
and received their culture abroad. That
they are not more widely appreciated at
home is largely due to the obstacles
thrown in the way of tho importation ot
great foreign art. The love of art and the
taste for It are formed by a continual
acquaintance with its best examples, and
upon these the United States Govern
ment puts a stigma amounting to a ban.
The objection that we should be flooded
with trash Is specious. For educational
influence all the trash In the world and
we have plenty of our own could not
weigh In the balance against one great
Rembrandt. Not only Is beauty "Its own
excuse for being"-, it carries Its own
power and revelation and Inspiration.
How many soever artists we produce we
shall never be an artistic people until we
live in closer access to the great art of
the world. Every museum In the coun
try Is a standing rebuke to the short
sightedness of Congress in thus taxing
the development of the people.
Another barbarism Is the tariff on
books. This is as much a tax on knowl
edge as If it were laid upon the public
schools and colleges. By a curious an
omaly, the books thus affected are main
ly those of English origin, the expression
of a civilization sympathetic to our own,
while books in foreign languages are ad
mitted free. The situation Is something
to be ashamed of. Jf any duty is kept
on books, there should be a clause pro
viding that all books sent for review
to any periodical entered as second-class
mall matter shall be admitted free under
such regulations as the Secretary of the
Treasury may direct.
A hardly less absurd theory seems to
have Inspired the tariff on lumber. On
our northern border is a country of
inexhaustible timber, able and eager to
supply our wants. And yet. for the en
richment of a comparatively few, we
prefer at enormous expense to destroy
our own supplies at many a point to
"make a-solitude and call It peace." The
destruction of forests In Minnesota, "Wis
consin and Michigan, New York and New
England by fire and for the necd3 of
Sale
Q
airs
$9
M AKE YOUR
OWN TERMS
costruction and, latterly, for wood pulp
is alarmingly on the increase. Against
such influences the conservative ten
dencies of forest reservation In the far
"West, tree planting and scientific culti
vation and cutting, seem to be like "sav
ing at the spigot and wasting at the
bung." It is high time that Congress
should look at this subject in truer per
spective and should remember that its
duty Is to legislate not merely for its
constituents today, but for generations
to come who are to preserve and. defend
the Ideas for which this Republic stands.
Activity in Logging Business.
KALAMA, Wash., Feb. 5. (Special.)
Preparations are being made by loggers
and mlllmen to resume active operations.
I. G. "Wickstrom, In addition to running
his mill, is building a logging road Into a
new body of timber preparatory to log
ging It off. The McFarlane Bros, have
gotten their new piling camp in running
order and have a force of men at work
felling timber. They will only employ a
small force until the bark will peel, and
then they expect to rush work to All their
contract of 600,000 linear feet.
The Spencer Creek Lumber Company
has finished a plank road from Its mill
out to the county road.
I. T. Dray & Sons are running a log
ging camp on the Kalama River, above
the falls, where they have 3,000,000 or
4.000.000 feet of logs to put In.
ears
P
Pears' Soap is the
great alchemist. Women
are made fair by its use.
void continuously since 17&.