New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-10
IT'S METHODS EXPOSED.
NEW LIGHT ON THE DEALINGS OF THE
TOBACCO TRUST.
AGREEMENTS WITH AGENTS REscINDED BECAUSE
THEY SOLD ANTITRUST GooDs-cUrTING
RATES ANOTHER cAUsE-PRoGREss
OF THE QUO wARRANro SUIT
IN NEWARK.


Tho methods pursued by the American Tobacco
COMPANY were disclosed to an unwonted degree In
the course OF the hearing before Vice-Chancellor
Reed in Newark yesterday. In the course OF the
testimony Of Josiah Brown. the secretary OF the
company, it appeared that the main reason LOT re-
voking the contracts with jobbers under the noto-
rous Consignment agreement was because the
dealers persisted in handling goods manufactured
BIZ the National Cigarette and Tobacco Company.
the PRINCIPAL competitors of the Trust and the real
insteatcrs Of the present suit. cutting the prces
of the Trusts products has heretofore been ahese'
AZ the reason but, In the testimony or MI b'o""'
the fact was elected that certain dealers were cut
off because they manifested desire to push the
sale of the goods made in other factories.
At the outset OF yesterdays proceedings Mr.
Linda bury, of counsel for the defence ooJecteu ~
the questions OF the opposing lawyers re'at'e 10
the company's transactions since the suit Was h'e''
At first The Vlca-Chancellor upheld him In his con-
tentIon but when Mr. McCarter argued that TINS
Testimony would throw considerable light on the
company's motives, and show the himsy character
of the consignment agreement. he ruled that I"
WAS admissible but IL he found later that his DE-
c,slon would prejudice the case OF the American lo-
bacco Company he would reverse his decision
Mr. Brown then went reading MS list OF hrhS
which had fallen from grace for various causes.
These numbered over a hundred. and the places al
fected ranged from New England to California ana
from Minnesota to FLORIDA Until he reached the
Boston Cigar and Tobacco Company MI. bro""
either did not know the reasons for the termination
Of the agreements or else he declared that the hrm
had been detected selling goods for less money Una"
the agreement allowed The Boston company, now
ever had been convicted OF handling the prouucts
Of the Trusts rival The American COMPANY "c
said had purchased the business OF h'h"eS
Brothers. whose staple brand was the sweet Cap
oral cigarettes This form of tobacco nad become
40 popular that the National company began the
manufacture of Royal Sweets" in the hope that
the nublIc would be attracted by the sweet part
of the name The American companys agents
learned that the Boston Cigar and TOBACCO Coni-
pany was acting as distributing agent FOR tn's
brand OF fictitious sweets, and FOR that reaso" It's
agreement WAS summarily ended
Lave sunshine e. Co was the happy title OF an
other firm that fell under the ban OF the TRUST
dlsp,easure for a similar crime II was aiter""'u
relnsta,ei however. When pressed, Mr. browh de-
clarei that he did not think the firm wouid nave
been allowed TO make a new contract unless IL mao
discontinued the sale Of cigarettes MADE py o'heF
firms
The witness detailed the troubles OF nnmoer OIL
other jobbers who had FLASHED with the trust
but nothing OF interest was elected uh'h INC
standing Of Seller. Zimmerman & Co.. OF Snamokih'
Penn was inquired into. According TO Mr.. BROW"
nemoran dum this firm cut of In May 1885, ana
/ r.lustated ten months later. Mr. Brown was UNI
able TO say why the firm had been deparreo' ou'
he felt sure It not on account OF cutting piee'
"In the course Of your testimony nave you bNe'
a., single instance where firm was cut on unless
was FOR cutting prices or pushing the produetts OF
other companies? asked Mr.: McCar,er' s 1 70
/ NO | can't that | have MT. Dro"" ie
piled. ,o.so, a,,hout incident until the
name Of p J. Seldenberg of Bunalo. was tedcnsu
mbsn Mr. Brown. after suggesting that he had been
IN. ON volunteered the remark that seidenberg Vas
,be brother or cousin OF the secretary Oh .ne Ma
iona Cigarette and Tobacco Company Inc ,, re
mark which seemed so innocent nrasabv AID not
wind for the witness whch lie p'o'''' ~
expect when he made IT, .,.,, s,o,,,d ha
,r1 Is ,has any aski rsN Mr. Me-
Wen answered Mr.. Brown ne pus NE. ,,o eme
goods Of that fSmpany might interfere with our bust
ness. and We dill not care to have MN nahu'e o''
Vas this brother or cousin, living in 1893 when
the contract With seidenbers was made"' was the
ne ?y question.
And in 1884, 80 !,
/ <,on the relationship existed through that term
Sellenbers asked for reinstatement and MS request
What made TO yOS for his r. sss
that could y9ap to- sSe Of Your
peiitors|' was the next query, and ,,ar retained
Mr.. Brown studied moment ana 'heh re'o'"eu
Among other names which had been stricken on
the sO q hO9V fs Mass Who S were said
be too Intimate with the Boston agents Oh tne Ma
lion also to be pusaed the sale Of
And that your objection. was IT, asked Mr.
well" said Mr.. Brown yes. They pushed them
10 the ietrment Of our sales -
/ Arm In Pi,tsburg was one which was cut on. and
which the Trust according to Mr.. Brown. was WILL
ing 10 relinquish to it's rival ,..
9Thev acted as agents for the Admiral cigarettes.
ard | wac glad when they took the agency. Iney
| owed rs money on consignments. and We FOUND out
that they sold our goods and then paid the proceeds
To the National Cigarette and Tobacco Company t0r
/ other goods We found them unsatisfactory, and We
were Wiling to let them deal with our rivals
/ Mr. Brown had nearly finished reading his list
when the Vice Chancellor adjourned court until this
morning