Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-11-18
ITHb GREAT TRUST TRIAL
Manufacturers of Duke Cigar
b cites in Court.
FOR VIOLATING THE LAW
Lawyers on Both Sides Present their Argu-
ments. Given Until December | to
Prepare Briefs.

New York Nov. 1.-THE argument on
the demurrer against the indictments
found last May against the directors of
the American Tobacco company was be-
gun today before Judge Fitzgerald in
general sessions. The men named in
the indictment are James B. Burke, Will
liam H. Butler William H. Marburg,
Lewis Gunter, George Arents, George w.
Gail, Benjamin N. Duke, George w.
Watts, Josiah Browne and Charles G.
Emery.
The grand jury first indicted them un-
der the common law, charging them with
conspiring to prevent competition in the
price of commodities in common use. A
superseding indictment was found for al
legged violation of the antitrust laws
recently passed. The alleged violation
is said to have occurred Oct. 4, 1894. The
indictment charges that on that date the
corporation known as the American To-
bacco company were engaged In the Dusl-
ness of making and selling paper cigar
cites and that it was impossible for
wholesale dealers and jobbers in paper
cigarettes to conduct and carry on their
business profitably without dealing in
the cigarettes manufactured by the
American Tobacco company. The in
dlCtiHCHl SC.S lOIlIi that tilSy dhid"L
monopolized the business of making and
selling paper cigarettes. The tobacco
men, through their counsel, Joseph H.
Choate, entered a demurrer to the indict-
ment, and after several postponements
the argument on the demurrer was fixed
for today in general sessions.
Lawyer William w. Fuller, for the de-
PENDANTS, made the first argument
against the validity of the indictment.
He contended that there was no viola
ton of law in the manner in which the
tobacco company had conducted bust
ness.
He cited number of precedents sus-
tanning his contention of the United
States circuit courts. He held that ci-
garettes were not necessity and there
fore did not come within the meaning of
the law. If the American Tobacco COM
pany really did stop the persons in this
indictment from dealing in the cigarettes
of another company it would not be il
legal 1t would be healthy competition.
The rights of private corporation are
no different from the rights of an indi-
vidual and may make such contracts as
an Individual
Mr.. Fuller contended that the act of the
legislature of 1885, in reference to trusts
was unconstitutional principally because
1t made the act of a corporation illegal
which would be legal for an individual.
He occupied an hour in making his ar
gument.
Attorney Lindsay in reply to Mr.. Full
Ter said the accused men had conspired
to create a monopoly and drive out all
competition by imposing on retail deal
ers conditions which prevented them
from dealing in the cigarettes of any 9TH
er manufacture.
Mr. Lindsay said that in considering
the combinations the courts always went
right down to the object of the combin-
alton to learn If there was any restric-
tion of trade or injury.
us the public injured, or may 1t be in
jured by carrying out such contract?
That is the chief point to consider. The
allegation in this indictment Is that, if
the contract of the American Tobacco
company was carried out, certain bust
ness men would be driven out of trade.
That is unlawful restraint of trade.
"a combination such as this forced on
the public is certainly an illegal con-
spiracy.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Lindsay's ar
gument a. recess was taken.
After recess Mr.. Choate began his argu-
been shown for the indictment. 1.-THE
counsel for the people," he continued,
comes here empty-handed. If the means
alleged against the American Tobacco
company are legal for an individual, they
are lawful for a corporation. The means
employed by the defendants were such
as were sustained by the law for centu-
ries. If the American Tobacco company
employs certain means to overcome a
rival in the sale of cigarettes and push
that competitor out of business how can
that be termed a conspiracy? Let us see
what the logical conclusion of the indict-
ment would be. They were the principal
manufacturers of cigarettes. Suppose
they conclude not to sell any of
their products. Then they are in
dictable for not selling and re-
strlcting trade, according to the con-
tention made by the district attorney. Is
that sensible? The members of corpor-
alton cannot be charged with conspiracy
fer conducting business which is law
full. Rivals in business cannot agree
among themselves to limit the supply of
ma terial and the price thereof to the
is,jury of the public. There is no doubt
asout that, but where the agreement of
one corporation Is aimed only at a rival
in business the case is quite different
Mr. Choate said the corporation was in
dicted for refusing to sell except upder it's
own stipulations. The corpora ton was
under no obligations to SELL as a railroad
is to carry passengers. No man Is bound
to benefit his rival.
Every man has right to conduct his
business as he chooses so long as he in
lures no one; he is under an obligation to
benefit If this were not so the corpora
lions controlling the various newspapers
would be guilty of violating the law in
fixing the price of newspaper at cents,
8 cents or / cent. But who would say
the newspaper corporations had not the
right to fix the price of their papers?"
Mr.. Choate has concluded his argu-
ments and it was agreed that both sides
should hand ND their briefs by Dec 1.
Decision on the demurrer may not be
given for several weeks.