The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-11
PREJUDICE NOT REASON.

The Times readers saw IN yesterday
issue a press dispatch, which was sent
out from Newark, y. j., that WAS N
al the papers stating that in the legal
proceedings pending against the Ameri-
can Tobacco Company. az the instance
OF the State of New Jersey the order
books of the said company had been
read. and they showed that the company
had ceased selling its goods 10 various
firms that had refused 10 agree with it
that they would not handle the goods Of
rival concerns.
Tie American Tobacco Company Is
nothing to The Times; 1t has no interest
IN il of any sort. but The Times a2s a
very vital interest in seeing those funda-
mental principles upon which al our
rights and all our affairs are built re-
spected and maintained.
The Times has on "a number CT occa-
.,ions pointed out the fact that the-e is
no difference whatever between the Amer
lean Tobacco Company and any other n
dustriai corporation that mas immense
means and does an immense business.
The Times has insisted. therefore, that
the attack upon this corporation was in
effect, an attack upon the principe OF
interpretations. The true question: as
we have repeatedly stated, is NOT Whether
the American Tobacco Company should
be abolished but whether incorporated
companies are for the benefit of man
kind; or. perhaps. the question whether
incorporated companies should be dissolved
as soon as they acquire a certain amoun
Of money. We are utterly unable 10
perceive any. difference between the
American Tobacco Company and amy
other very rich corporation; SO. that We
insist that the war upon it 10 ei,aer a
war upon the principle Of incorporation,
or. at any rate. upon corporations after
they acquire a certain degree OF wealth.
Some time back. when the New York
journal OF Commerce was waeing o war
upon the American Tobacco Company. we
pointed these considerations out 10 b.. and
after some rather acrimonious discussion
with it II seemed 90 have grasped this
idea. and 10 abandon the position that
the corporation. as an organization. was
liable 10 be- attacked Ia place OF that
fad, IT adopted, however. the new one.
that this corporation was powerful
monopoly because 81 did business accord
ing to the methods disclosed hoy the en-
tries on its books that were read in the
New Jersey court.
N-,r,. ..e .t.. Iat.. ..ft ..... ...-
American Tobacco Compauy's alyocate.
We care no more for 80 taan icr aay other
business enterprise. al OF which ,ye hope
70 see prosper. But We do care for the
sound ana wen-established principles OF
business.
Upon what principle is it 10 be said
that this company shall not sell IT'S own
goods upon It's own termsg Suppose II
should adopt rule that II would not
sell It's goods 20 any men with red hair.
nj Of as might say 90 was a very fool
ssn and q very absurd rule. bat shan any
one say & has no right 10 90 Il /. 1t
pleas,ss Its goods belong 90 itself. and
II may sell them to whom it plcascs. or
il nay refuse 10 sell them TO any one.
II 'rls De so, why NAV it not say II VIII
noi seli to jobbe- unless that Jotbcr
agrees that DC VIII sell the cigarettes Of
10 other concern:
We insist toat thc claim made IN this
matter amounts - a most outrageous ana
iyTanE!cal attempt 10 abridgc the natural
liberty ana ffoelem Of tho citizen. and
that all jrsf men should discard cant
and prcjuGice fiom their minds and
express their utter and most emphatic
condemnation Of g.