Baltimore Evening Sun (21 June 1911): 6.
A brief chronology of the case against the so-called Beef Trust for violating the Sherman Anti-Trust law:
- March 28—New York Herald prints charges that Armour & Co., Swift & Co., Cudahy & Co., Nelson, Morris & Co. and Schwarschild & Sulzberger have entered into a combination to control prices and restrain trade.
- April 6—New York Herald prints full text of their secret agreement.
- April 12—Evidence is turned over to Philander C. Knox, Attorney-General of the United States. May 10–United States District Attorney S. H. Bethea, of Chicago, liles a complaint with Judge Grosscup and asks for an injunction restraining the members of the trust from continuing their illegal agreement.
- May 20—Judge Grosscup grants temporary injunction.
- August 4—Trust files demurrers to Government’s bill and seeks to have injunction dismissed.
- December 16—-Argument on demurrers before Judge Grosscup.
- February 18–Trust’s demurrer overruled and injunction made permanent.
- February 19—Trust appeals to Supreme Court of United States.
- March 18—Parties to combination organize the National Packing Company.
- Nothing doing.
- January 19—Argument before Supreme Court.
- January 30–Supreme Court hands down decision unanimously sustaining Judge Grosscup.
- January 31—Trust decides to defy injunction.
- February 1–District Attorney S. H. Bethea ordered to prosecute trust criminally.
- February 21—Special grand jury organized: 185 witnesses summoned.
- March 25—Hearing of witnesses begun.
- March 29–Thomas J. Connors, general superintendent of Armour & Co., indicted for trying to influence witnesses.
- April 14—Four officials of Schwarzschild & Sulzberger indicted for obstructing service of subpœnas. July 1—Grand jury returns indictments against Armour & Co., Swift & Co., Nelson, Morris & Co., the Cudahy Packing Company and the Fairbank Canning Company and against 17 officers of these companies. for entering into a combtnatton in restraint of trade.
- July 2—Grand jury returns additional indictments, charging rebating and various other offenses.
- September 21—Four officers of Schwarzschild & Sulzberger found guilty of accepting railroad rebates and fined $25,000. Fine paid at once.
- November 2–Individual packers claim immunity on the ground that they were forced to testify before grand jury.
- March 21—Judge J. Otis Humphrey, in the United States District Court, at Chicago, grants immunity asked for on November 2, 1905.
- July 6—Chicago Commercial Association and Illinois Manufacturers’ Association pass resolutions pledging support to trust.
- Nothing doing.
- Nothing doing.
- Nothing doing.
- March 2—Federal grand jury in Chicago indicts National Parking Company, 14 subsidiary companies and 12 individual officers for violating Sherman Anti-Trust law.
- March 12—Government files suit for dissolution of National Packing Company.
- September 12—J. Ogden Armour and nine others indicted for conspiring to control price of fresh meat.
- April 3—Lawyen for Armour at al., appearing to argue demurrers, ask for 10 days’ extension.
- April 18—Demurrers to indictment argued.
- May 12—Demurrers overruled.
- May 17–Lawyers apply for leave to reargue demurrers on ground that Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Oil case stands as a bar of prosecution in all beef cases.
- June 10—Judge George A. Carpenter refuses leave to reargue demurrers. Trial of accused set for October, 1911.
Nine years—and the trial of Armour and the others to still four months ahead!
Discoursing the other day upon the United Railways Company’s outrageous and illegal effort to abolish smoking on street-car platforms (by the adoption, to wit, of pay-as-you-enter cars), I had the uuhappiness, it appears, to offend a fair reader, and from this fair reader there now comes, upon three sheets of note paper, a bitter protest. I boil it down:
It was not always necessary for a woman to fight for consideration from men. There was a time when courtesy and consideration were masculine attributes in the South. Smoking on street-car platforms compels women entering a car to struggle through a crowd of smokers, white and black. and a fog of smoke. Suppose you had a wife or sweetheart who did not love tobacco. Unluckily, the wounds of others find little sympathy in the masculine heart, and so I suppose you cannot place yourself in the position or your gentle wife.
And so, and so on.
All this, of course, is earnest enough, but is it argument? I doubt it. Isn’t it a fact that a woman entering a street car is commonly able to cross the smoky platform in less than four seconds? Isn’t it a fact, further, that the amount of smoke she inhales in four seconds cannot possibly harm her? Isn’t it a fact, finally, that the conventional feminine antipathy to tobacco smoke is, at bottom, nothing more than a mere convention—that women would be the better if they could be rid of such preposterous pretensions to weakness, fastidiousness and invalidism?
For the woman, or man, who is actually made ill by a whiff of tobacco smoke I have the greatest pity. But such persons, it must be plain, are very rare. In the course of a long and sinful life, indeed, I have never met a single one. Men and women who cannot smoke themselves are common enough, but men and women who are made ill, or even uncomfortable, by four seconds’ contact with diffused and attenuated smoke from the cigars and pipes of others are certainly not common at all. When they are encountered the thing to do with them is to send them to a sanatorium. A street car, it is obvious, is no place for such moribund weaklings.
But though the real thing is rare, the imitation is often encountered. In brief, thousands of women, made soft by debilitating courtesy, have been led to fancy that tobacco smoke poisons them. That pretense is part of the role they play. Having been taught from infancy to regard themselves as delicate and breakable and to expect from all normal folk a gross and ennervating consideration, they end by demanding that consideration as a right. Hence the Lady, with her silly dignity and her sillier affectation of fragility.
Upon the trail of the Lady the suffragettes hang. They will eventually overtake her and knock her out. They will win for their sex the common rights of human beings, and they will bring down upon their sex the common burdens of human beings. It will become lawful for women to vote and it will become necessary for them to be honest. They will have to lay aside their armor of romance, their seven veils of make-believe. And thereby they will gain in self-respect and in the respect of the world.