Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-11-18
TOBACCO co. CASE.
.,,rNTIN DEMURRER AGAINST
.o,,rMENr FOUND LAST MAY.
urgGED RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
.o of Conspiracy 20 Prevent
competition and TO Monopoiine the
cigarette B"siness-0h""te for the
corporation.
corporation

cigarette Business-Cho"te for the
corporation.
,.r,y YORK. November 1.-THE argu-
.s the demurrer against the indict-
f,und last May against the direc-
NJ the American Tobacco Company
f.eun to-day before Judge Fitz-
r n General Sessions. The men
in the Indictment are James b.
.o William H. Butler William II.
,..rrrr LOWS Giuter George Arents.
-. u.s.. Gail Benjamin y. Duke.
W. Watts. Josiah Browne, and
~.rs o.. Emery The grand jury first
...f fhem under the common law,
..-.rs them with conspiring TO prevent
ttIan in the price Of commodities
.mmon use. 4 supcrseding indict-
MAS found FOR alleged violation Of
.r.-.rus, law recently passed. The
.r-I Violation is said TO have occurred
,rf 1885,
-. Indictment charges that on that
s.. ae corporation known as the
American Tobacco Company was engaged
.. business OF making and selling
CIGARETTES. and that Ct was i'm
lid. f.r wholesale dealers and jobbers
... cigarettes 90 conduct and carry
r...r business prohtahiy without deal
~. ta. cigarettes manufactured 10y tine
.--..u Tobacco Company. The indict-
ts forth that they unlawfuliy
..I the business OF making and
r. ..rer cigarettes The tobacco
. Hrarh their counsel. Joseph h.
.. entered demurrer TO the indict-
~ .UI after several postponemcnts
.. .ument ON the demurrer was hXed
in General Sessions.
f.Dr.r S.. w. Fuller. for the defend
.... . D., thc FIRST argument against the
.y of the Indictment. He contended
Dbl. tn.ro was no violation OF law in
Id. manner 900 which the Tobacco Com
..-. ... conducted business He cited
of presidents sustaining his
.--.n.u .u the United States Circuit
- ue held that cigarettes were
..t. necessity" and. therefore. did not
Within tae meaning of the Jaw.
.r. American Tobacco Company really
f. .ur th. persons in this indictment
..- dealing iu the cigarettes of am
-...r company 10 would not be Illegal.
De- would Doe healthy competition. The
..Ht. nf private corporation are not
.f-t from the rights of an individual,
t.. -r. corporation may make such con-
..t- as an individual
ANTITRUST ACT
,r- Fuller contended that the act Of
r. legislature n 1885 IN reference 20
rust. WAS unconstitutional principally
ID made the act of q corporation
.... which would Doe legal for an in
He occupied an hour On making
.r.rmert
Attorney Lindsay. So reply to MT Ful-
SID. t.e accused men had consp.red
..I. DID, monopoly. and drive out all
.--.-...01 by imposing on retail dealers
.a- which prevented them from
1 the cigarettes Of any other
..ur-r
n- Lindsay sid that. In considering a
rlu the courts always went
-..t Gown 20 the object Of the combina-
..r t. learn 81 there was any restric-
trade or injury 20 the public. The
initial thing was the conspiracy 10
.-r. oat competitors. and monOpoize the
D.. SO. the law prohibited such.
.r. "a. public injured, or may 10 be in
t.-. .r CARRYING ont such contract?
he chief point 90 consider. The
-rr in The indictment Is that, IL
q. contract OF the American Tobacco
.. was carried out. certain busl-
....rr would be driven out of trade
r- .- unlawful restraint of trade.
r.-.u such as this forced on the
H certainly an Illegal conspiia-
Az the corciusion Of Mr.. Lindsay's ar
,..uf recess was taken
MR.. CHOATE
After recess air. Chcate began his ar
r... He declared that no authority
l Iu shown for the Indictment.
~t counsel for the people he CON
rrr. comes here empty-handed. II
t. means alleged against the American
Tobacco. Company are legal Tor an ,ndi-
...L tley are lawful for a corpora
t. The means employed by the de-
r..rf. arc such as have been sustained
b.. De-. Mw for centuries. II the Ameri-
r Tobacco Company employs certain
seam. fo overcome rival 10 the sale OF
Cigarettes and push that compeHtor OUT
.f I...r mess how can that be termed
.--trIrlrv9 Let us see what the logical
u-.on Of the Indictment would be.
I.. ra the principal manufacturers OF
...rtft.s Suppose they conclude not 10
any NJ their products. Then they are
r.nf'n for not selling and restrict
H.. trade. according 10 the contention
r.-. ly the District Attorney. is mat
.Hl.s The members of a corporation
o.r.t he charged with conspiracy for
.r..t'u- a business which IS lawful.
Hr. 600 business cannot agree among
themselves % limit the supply OF material
- f.a price thereof 90 the INJURY OF me
r There SIS no doubt about that'
t.t where Che agreement Of one corpora
. aimed only az rival III business
Oh. case is quite different
Nr ohoate said the corporation was
.tel for refusing 10 sell, except unoer
0.n populations. The CORPORATION
a.. uller no obligation 20 sell, as ran
r.I is to carry passengers. No man IS
i.rl fo benefit his rival Every man
t.. right 20 conduct his business as
t. chooses so long as he Injuries no one
D.. e under an obligation 10 beneht' ii
t- were not $50. the corporations con-
Urr fhe various newspapers would DE
r tr NJ violating the law In fixing the
r. Of a newspaper az cents, 3 cents
r cent But who would say the news
ar.r corporations had not me iishI 10
ft tla price of their papers
Hr Choate here concluded ms aIsu-
r.t and 10 was agreed that both SIDES
-ul hand up their brielstby Dece mhef
.t a decision on the demurrer may nos
b. rl0n for several weeks.