The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-11-19
THE LAW AGAINST TRUSTS,
A GREAT CASE ON TRIAL IN a NEW
YORK COURT.
The American Tobacco Trust, Manutsc'
turing Cigarettes, is Charged With
Violating New York's Law.

the American Tobacco Company was be.
gun to-day before Judge Fitzgerald in
General Sessions. The men named in
the Indictment are James II. Burke, VIII
liam III. Butler, William II, Marburg.
Lewis Ginter, George Arents, George w
| Gail. Benjamin n. Duke, George w
Watts, Josiah IL. Browne and Charles
@. Emery,
The grand jury first indicted them m
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 anti-trust laws re
| Gently passed The alleged violation is
/ said to have occurred October q. 1894.
| The indictment charges that on that date
| the corporation known rs the American
| Tobacco Company were engaged in bust
| ness of making and selling paper cigar
cites, aud that it was impossible for
wholesale dealers and jobhers in paper
cigarettes TO conduct and carry on their
business profitably without dealing in
the cigarettes manufactured by the Am
eriean Tobacco Company. The indict-
ment sets forth that they unlawfully
monopolized the business OF making and
selling paper cigarettes. The tobacco
men, through their counsel, Joseph II.
Choate. entered a demurrer TO the indict-
ment. and after several postponements,
the arguments ON the demurrer was fixed
for to-day in General Sessions
Lawyer William W Fuller, for the de
PENDANTS. made the first argument against
the validity of the Indictment He con-
tended that there was no violation Sf law
IN the manner in which the Tobacco Com
pany had conducted business. He cited
number of precedents sustaining his con-
tention Of the United States Circuit
Courts. lie held that cigarettes were not a
necessity" and, therefore did not come
within the meaning of the law. If the
American Tobacco Company really did
stop the persons in this Indictment from
dealing in the cigarettes of another com
pany it would not be illegal 1t would be
healthy competition The rights of pri-
yate corporation are no different from the
rights OF an individual, and may make
such contracts as an individual
Mr. Fuller contended that the Act of
the Legislature of 1896 in reference TO
trusts was unconstitutional, principally
because it made the act of a corporation
illegal which would be legal for an in
dividual. He occupied an hour in MAX
ing his argument.
Attorney Lindsay, in reply TO Mr.. Full
Ter said the accused men had conspired to
create a monopoly and drive out all COM
petition by imposing on retail dealers con-
ditions which prevented them from deal
ing in the cigarettes of any other manu-
facture.
Mr.. Lindsay said that in considering the
combinations the Courts always went
right down to the object of the combina-
ton to learn if there was any restriction
of trade or injury to the public. One es-
| sential thing was the conspiracy TO drive
cat competition and monopolize the trade.
| Iii SO, the law prohibited such.
Is the public injured, or may it be in
| jured, by carrying out such contract?
| That is the chief point to consider The
allegation in this indictment is that il
| the contract of the American Tobacco
| Company was carried out certain business
| men would be driven out of trade. That
| is unlawful restraint of trade. COM
| bination such as this forced on the public
| Is certainly an illegal conspiracy.
| AT the conclusion of Mr.. Lindsay's ar
| gument recess was taken.
4 A1JeF recess NIX NJJiodtG uESdn HIS a1-
! gument He declared that no authority
had been shown for the Indictment. 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 corporation. The
means employed by the defendants were
| such as were sustained by the law of
A. fTaf,c,
Company employs certain means to over
come 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 in
| dictment would be. They were the prin-
| cipal manufacturers of cigarettes. Sup
pose they conclude not to sell any Of
their products Then they are indictable
| for not selling and restricting trade, ac-
| cording to the contention made by the
district attorney. Is that sensible? The
| members of a corporation cannot be
charged with conspiracy for conducting
| a business which is lawful. Rivals in
| business cannot agree among themselves
to limit the supply of material and the
price thereof to the injury of the public.
There is no doubt about that, but where
1
ed only at rival in business the case is
quite different"
Mr.. Choate said the corporation was
indicted for refusing to sell except under
its own stipulations. The corporation
was under no obligations to sell, as a
railroad is to carry passengers. No man
is bound to benefit his rival Every man
has a right to conduct his business as he
chooses so long as he Injuries no one he
is under an obligation to benefit. If this
were not so the corporations controlling
the various newspapers would be guilty
of violating the law in fixing the price OF
a newspaper at two cents, three cents or
one cent But who would say the news
paper corporations had not the right to
fix the price of their papersY'
Mr.. Choate here concluded his argu-
ment, and it was agreed that both sides
should hand in their briefs by December
i. Decision on the demurrer may not be
given for several weeks.