The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-11-18
TOBACCO TRUSTS BOLD TALK.
CHOATE SAYS 1T CAN RUN IT'S Bus
MESS AS 1T CHOOSES.

Corporations Have the Same Rights
as Individuals-RivaI Corporations
Cannot Combine Against the Pub
lie, But Can Fight Each other by
Any Lawful Means They Choose to
Employ.
New York, Nov. 17.-The argument on
the demurrer against the indictments
found last May against the directors Of
the American Tobacco Company, was be-
gun to-day before Judge Fitzgerald in
general sessions.
The men named in the indictment are
James B. Burke, william H. Butler, Will
lam H. Marburg, Lewis Ginter, George
Arents, George w. Gail, Benjamin N.
Duke, George w. Watts. Josiah Browne
and Charles G.. Emery.
The grand jury first indicted them under
the common law, charging them with con-
spring to prevent competition in the
price of commodities in common use. A
superseding indictment was found for al
legged violation of the antitrust laws re-
Gently passed. The alleged violation is
said to have occurred Oct. 6, 1894. The
indictment charges that on that date the
corporation known as the American To-
bacco Company were engaged in the busl-
ness of making and selling paper ciga-
rettes, and that 1t was impossible for
wholesale dealers and jobbers in paper
| cigarettes to conduct and carry on their
business prohtably without dealing in the
| cigarettes manufactured by the American
| Tobacco Company.
The indictment sets forth that they un-
| mnnOOOliZad a nf
making and selling paper cigarettes. The
| tobacco men, through their counsel,
| Joseph H. Choate, entered demurrer to
the indictment, and after several post
ponements the argument 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 of law
in the manner in which the tobacco COM
pany had conducted its business. He
| cited number Of precedents of the Uni
ted States courts sustaining his conten-
| ton. He held that cigarettes were not
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 a pri-
|
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 one hour In maxi
| ing his argument.
Attorney Lindsay, in reply to Mr.. Fuller,
said the accused men had conspired to Gre
! ate monopoly and drive out all competi-
| ton by imposing on retail dealers condi-
| tions which prevented them from dealing
in the cigarettes of any other manufacture.
Mr.. Lindsay said that in considering the
| combination the courts always went right
down to the object of the combination to
| learn If there was any restriction Of trade
or injury to the public. The essential
| thing was the conspiracy to drive out
competitors and monopolize the trade. If
so, the law prohibited such.
Is the public injured, or may it be in
iured by carrying out such a contract?
That is the chief point to consider. The al
legation in this indictment is that if the
! contract of the American Tobacco Com
pany was carried out, certain business
men would be driven out of trade. That
| is unlawful restrain of trade. A combina-
| ton such as this forced on the public is
certainly an illegal conspiracy.
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Ldndsay's argu-
! ment recess was taken.
After the recess Mr.. Choate began his
argument. He declared that no authority
had been shown for the indictment 1.-The
counsel for the people," continued he,
! '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 have been sustained by the law for
| centuries. If the American Tobacco Com
| pany employs certain means to overcome
| rival in the sale of cigarettes and push
| that competitor out of the business, how
| can that be termed conspiracy? Let us
see what the logical conclusion of the
| Indictment would be. They were the
principal manufacturers of cigarettes.
| Suppose they conclude not to sell any
of their products. Then they are indict-
able for not selling and restricting trade,
according to the contention made by the
district attorney. Is that sensible? The
members of a corporation cannot be
charged with conspiracy for conducting
business which is lawful. Rivals in busi-
ness 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
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
dcted 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 in
jures no one he Is under an Obligation
to benefit. II this were not 50 the cor
porations controlling the various newspa-
pers 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 newspaper corpora tions had
not the right to fix the price OF their
papers?
Mr. Choate here concluded his argu.
ment, and II was agreed that both sides
should hand UP their briefs by Dec. /.
Decision on the demurrer may not be Civ
en- for sevral weeks