Реферат: Sherman Anti Trust Act Essay Research Paper
Название: Sherman Anti Trust Act Essay Research Paper Раздел: Топики по английскому языку Тип: реферат |
Sherman Anti Trust Act Essay, Research Paper United States The U.S. Supreme Court case of Swift and Company v. United States (1905) dealt with the applicability of the Sherman Anti-trust act to monopolistic businesses in the meat-packing industry. A number of companies in different states were charged with coming together to hold back trade in livestock and in the sale of meat. Specifically, they were charged with price fixing, blacklisting, rigging cartage and railroad rates, and restricting shipments of meat. The companies argued that, even if the charges were true, all of the practices had occurred within a single state and were not a part of interstate commerce . This case has alot to do with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is one of the great landmarks in the development of the U.S. government-business restraint and monopoly of trelationship, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 was decided by Congress to prohibit trusts and combinations in stopping trade or commerce among states or with foreign nations. The act, named for Senator John Sherman, was the first federal law made to deal with what was seen as a growing centralization of economic power by monopolistic corporations . The Department of Justice enforces the act, although private parties also may bring actions under the act. A unanimous court, led by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., made the Sherman act able to be used to back the charges made. Holmes maintained that although the rade took place within a single state, the “effect upon commerce among the states is not accidental, secondary, remote or merely probable.” It had a direct effect on commerce across state lines and therefore came within the authority of Congress and of the Sherman act. This case revived the Sherman act, which had been made after a ruling in the united states vs. E.C. Knight Company case in 1895. It also became an important example for future regulation of local matters, which although are not usually commerce, are a vital part of the movement of goods across state lines. The defendants in this case were charged with ten specific charges. The first was they would go to cities such as Chicago, Omaha, St. Paul, Kansas City, St.Joseph, and East St. Louis and buy live stock. Then they would take it back to their respective plants in other states and slaughter the live stock to sell for human consumption. The second charge is that the defendants were transporting the meat by several railroad companies to different cities, states and some foreign countries and saying that the meat was processed in the same city in which it was sold. The third charge was the defendants were using agents in principal markets in other states and countries to sell to consumers and dealers. The forth charge is that the defendants hold about six tenths of all regulated sale of meats in the United States. The fifth charge was for deceiving the government and people by acting as competitors while in reality the were a collective unit, therefor avoiding charges of monopolizing the market. The sixth charge was in order to stop competition amongst themselves in purchasing live stock the defendants have and intend to continue to make deals to help not bid against each other resulting in the live stock owners to sell at lower prices then they would receive if the bidding was actually competitive. The seventh charge was, for the same purposes as the sixth charge, The defendants work together to bid up, through their agents, the prices of the live stock. They will only do this so that the market reports will show prices much higher than the state of trade will warrant, This forces stock owners in different states to make large shipments, to their disadvantage. The eighth charge was once again in order to restrain competition amongst themselves and also to monopolize the commerce protected by law, the defendants combined to arbitrarily from time to time, raise, lower, and fix prices and to maintain uniform prices at which they will |