Brief for the Appellant — United States v. Swift & Co.

“

I

re

?

FILE COPY : | aan ae

«

IN THE

Supreni Court of the Cniied States -

OcToBER Term, 1931. on

No. 568.

Unitep States or AMERYA,-

| Vv.

Swirt & Company, ET AL.

= "No. 569. |

AMERICAN WHOLESALE Grocers ASSOCIATION,

7 : -. . = * -

- Swirt & Company, ET Au.

No. 570.

NationaL WHOLESALE Grocers ASSOCIATION, |

vz

Swirt & Company, ETAL.

A?

<

Statement Under Rule 12, Paragraph 1, by Intervener-

Appellant, National Wholesale Grocers Associa

= of the United States. :

/

mum C. Breep,

REED, ApBott.& Moraan,

Attorneys for National Whole-

- Grocers Association of the ~ -

‘United States, ae

_ 15 Broad Street,

_ Borough of Manhattan, -

_ City of New. York. .

—_

. Press or Brrow 8. Apams, Wasnineton, D.C. —

a as eo x age + ATH rete eS

7

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States

OcroBER Term, 1931.

N o. 568.

Unitep States oF AMERICA,

v. i,

Swirt & Company, ET AL.

No. 569.

' American WHOLESALE Grocers. AssocraTIoN,

| v 7 ras

Swirt & Company, ET AL.

No. 570.:

NATIONAL Wouesate GROCERS Association,

v.

Swirt & Company, ET AL.

\ ‘Statement Under Rule 12, Paragraph 1, by Intervener-

Appellant, National Wholesale Grocers Associa-

tion of the United States.

This appeal is taken pursuant to the Expediting

Act (U. S. Code, Title 15, Chap. ‘1, Sec. 29) which

_ provides :

‘‘In every suit-in equity brought in any dis-

trict eourt of the United States under any of

the laws mentioned in the preceding section,

2...

wherein the United States is complainant, an ap-

peal from the final decree of the district court

will lie only to the Supreme Court and must be

taken within sixty days from the entry thereof.’’ .

The ‘‘laws mentioned in the preceding section’’ are

U. 8. Code, Title 15, Chap. 1, Secs. 1-7, inclusive

(Sherman Act), and Sec. 25 (Clayton Act). .

The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is

a ‘‘district court of the United States’’ within the

meaning of the above-quoted provision.

Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U. 8. 311.

- That provision applies with equal force to appeals

by interyeners as to appeals by the original parties.

U. S. v. California Cooperative Canneries, 279

U. S. 553, 559. , 7

In Continental Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 156,

the appeals under the Expediting. Act were taken

by interveners (See page 164). a

By an order of the Supreme Court of. the District

of Columbia, entered November 5, 1921 ( Cumulative* _

p. 146) National Wholesale Grocers Association of

the United States was granted leave to intervene in

the above-entitled suit for the purpose and to. the

* extent of being heard © | ‘

‘in opposition to any proposed change. im the

consent decree which would deprive the iter-

weners of the protection now secured by said

decree.” => :

“The Record has not yet been printed. The cumulative page numbers

refer to the pages of the Record (partly printed and partly type-

written) transmitted by the clerk of the court below, counting con-

secutively from p. 1 of the Petition.

‘

3

Since the granting of said order this intervener

has actively cooperated in the Government’s efforts

to sustain said Consent Decree and to restore it to

effective operation.. When the question of the valid-

ity of the Consent Decree was before this Court (Swift

~& Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311), thts interverfer

supported the position of the Government with brief

; and oral argument and its status as a proper party

was not questioned. In the present proceeding this

intervener was active ‘in opposing modification of: the

Consent Decree, and its right to appear and pagtic-

ipate as a party litigant was fully recognized by the

court below (R. 398, 399, 401, Statement of Evi-

dence, p. 1316). <a

The Decree appealed pon which was peented

upon the petitions of. certain of the defendants and

without the consent of the Government, deprived this

intervener of all the protection secured to it by the

Consent Decree by permitting the defendants to man-

ufacture, sell and deal in the commodities specified

‘ in paragraphs ‘‘Fourth’”’ and ‘‘Fifth’’ of the Con-

-sent Decree (R. 1650, 1653, 1629).

_. .The Decree sought to be reviewed was entered on

the 31st day of January, 1931, and was amended by

an order dated February 26, 1931 (R. 1650, 1653).

This intervener’s application for the appeal was

presented and allowed on the ioe day of March, 1931 _—

(R. 1757,.1758). The citation’and acknowledgment of

service thereof were: filed March 31, 1931 (R. 1760,

1763). Extension of time was granted for docketing

the case with the.Clerk of this court until December.

24, 19381 (R. 1819). ‘

This is a suit in equity brought by the Govern-

ment against Swift & Co. and other =—_ Meat |

. .

5 - , . -

*f e

‘ ‘ * Q

nee Lore eR PREBLE PNET SOE TEI ti at a a eer AY PPS “

4

Packers under the Anti-Trust Laws and resulted ‘in

the-entry on February 27, 1920, of a Consent Decree

- (R. 1,.118), which has heretofore been passed upon

by this court and held to be valid and binding (276

U. S. 311; 279 U. S. 553). As already stated, the ——

Decree appealed from materially modified-said a

sent Decree without the Government’s consent and

deprived this intervener of the protection secured to

it by said Consent Decree.

- The following decisions of this court are believed

to sustain the jurisdiction of this court:

U. 8. ¥.. California Cooperative Canneries, 279

U.S: 553; °° -

Swift & Co. v. U. S., 276 U. S. 311;

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, (194

U. S. 25;

Continental Co. v. .U. S., 259 U. S. 156, 164;

i S.-v. International Harvester Co., 274: U. S.

5 693 ; «i

| | Paramount- Famous Lasky* Corp. v. U. §&., 282 |

a Ae U. S. 30;

U. S. v. First National Pictures, 282 U. B. 44.

Dated: December 11, 1931.

Respectfully submitted,

Wuuum C. Breen,

Breep, Apsott & Morean,

Attorneys for National Whole-

Grocers Association of the :

United States, w

| 15 Broad Street, Pua

; Borough of Manhattan,

City of New York. »

RW EEA RA MRE NDEBELE NMG EB AR

5

. Service of the foregoing statement is hereby ac-

knowledged this 11th day of December, 1931.

Joun Lorp O’Brian,

‘The Assistant to the Attorney Gen-

eral Counsél for the United States

of America.

Frank J. Hocan, Netson T. Harts&®,

Counsel for Swift & Company, et al.,

and: Armour & Compony, et al.,

_ Appellees.

Epear Watkins, |

Counsel for American Wholesale

_ Grocers’ Association.