In the case known as that of the United States v. Swift & Company et al., the defendants were seven corporations, one copartnership, and twenty-three other persons (commonly styled "the Beef Trust"), charged with violations of the anti-trust law, by combination in restraint of the trade which they conducted, namely, the buying of live stock, slaughtering the same in different states and selling the meats thus produced. It was affirmed by the Government that they, together, controlled about sixty per cent. of the total Volume of that trade in the country, and that if the alleged combination among them did not exist they "would be and remain in competition with each other"; but that by such "unlawful combination and conspiracy" they were directing and requiring their agents (1) not to bid against one another in the live-stock markets of the different States; (2) to bid up prices for a few days so as to induce cattlemen to send their stock to the stock-yards; (3) to fix prices at which they would sell, and hence, when necessary, to restrict shipments of meat; (4) to establish a uniform rule of credit to dealers and to keep a blacklist; (5) to make uniform and improper charges for cartage; and (6) to obtain less than lawful rates from the railways to the exclusion of all competitors. The case, on motion for injunction, was tried first in the Circuit Court of the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Peter S. Grosscup. The Opinion of the Court, given April 18, 1903, held that, under the definition of the term by the Supreme Court in the Trans-Missouri Freight Association Case (see, in this Volume, Railways: United States: A. D. 1890-1902), "there can be no doubt that the agreement of the defendants to refrain from bidding against each other in the purchase of cattle is combination in restraint of trade: so also their agreement to bid up prices to stimulate shipments, intending to cease from bidding when the shipments have arrived. {120} The same result," continued the judge, "follows when we turn to the combination of defendants to fix prices upon and restrict the quantities of meat shipped to their agents or their customers. Such agreements can be nothing less than restriction upon competition, and, therefore, combination in restraint of trade; and thus viewed, the petition, as an entirety, makes out a case under the Sherman Act. … The demurrer is overruled, and the motion for preliminary injunction granted."