The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-11-18
AMERICAN TOBACCO co
IRG UMENT IN 1HE DENtRRER
AGAINST THE INDICTMENTS.
Strong speeches in Behalf of the Defend
ant by Messrs. Fuller ana 'ho"'e'
Attorney Lindsay Replies.

in tho demurrer against the indictments
found last May against the directors Oh
the American Tobacco Company was
begun to-day before Judge Fitzgerald IN
General Sessions. The men named In
the Indictment are James Il. Burke, VIII
liam IL. Butler. William II. Marburg'
Lewis Ginter George Arcnts, George
W. Gail. Benjamin y. Duke. George W.
Watts. Josiah Browne, and Charles q.
Emery. The grand jury first indicted
them under the common law; charging
them with consDring TO prevent compc-
tition i'm the price of commodities In
common use. \ supersedng indictment
was found for alleged violation OF thc
antitrust laws recently passed. The
alleged violation IS said 10 have oc
CURED October 8. 1891.
The indictments charge that ON tnat
date the corporation known as the Amer
lean Tobacco Company was engaged ~
tho business OF making and selling paper
cigarettes and that IT was im9ossioie
for wholesale dealers and jobbers IL paper
cigarettes TO conduct ami carry on th,F
business prontably without dealing in the
cigarettes manufactured by the '',Ii-
can Tobacco Company. The indictment
sons forth that they unlawfully monopo-
lied the business of making and selling
paper cigarettes. The tobacco m2i D,
through their counsel. Joseph II. Chou
entered a demurrer to the indictmeIt,
and after several pos.ponements, tie
argument on the demurrer was hXed 10.
to-day in General Sessions.
Mp ErT-TT Fps DEFENCE
Lawyer W. W. Fuller, for the defcn-
dants made the first argument against
the validity of the Indictment lie con-
tended that there was 10 violation OF law
in the manner I'm which the tobacco
company has conducted business. He ci.-
od number Of prcc,dents sustaining his
contention of the United states Circuit
Courts He held that cigarettes were not
necessity and. therefore, did not
come within the meaning Of the law
n the American Tobacco Company
really did stop the PERSONS i'm this indict-
ment from dealing i'm the cigarettes OF
another company. il would not be lie
gall 90 would he healthy competition.
The rights Of a private corporation are
not different from the rights Of an IN
dividual. and may make such contracts
as an individual
Mr.. Fuller contcnded that the act Of the
LEGISLATURE in 1916 i'm reference to trusts
was unconstitutional. principally because
it made the act of a corporation Illegal.
which would bee legal fer an individual.
llc occupied an hour in making his ar
sument.
Mr.. LINDSAYS REPLY.
Attorney Lindsay i'm reply TO Mr.. Ful-
Ter. said the accused men had c0nspired
Go create q monopoly and drive out all
competition by imposing on retail deal
ors conditions which prevented them
from dealing on the cigarettes of any
other manufacturer.
Mr.. Lindsay said that I'm considering
the combinations. the court always went
right down 10 the object Of the combina-
ton To- learn If there was any restriction
of trade or injury TO the public The cs-
sential thing was the conspiracy 10 drive
out competitors and monopOlize the
trade. II So the law prohibited such.
'ls the public iniured?' he asked. cor
may It Doe injured by carrying out such
contract? That is the chief point 10
consider. The All cation in this indict-
ment is that il the contract Of the Amer
team Tobacco Company was carried ont.
certain business men would he driven
ont OF trade. That IS unlawful restraint
of trade. \ combination such as a.
forced on the public IS certainly an d.
legal conspiracy"
at the conclusion of Mr. Linlsay's ar
gument a recess was taken.
MIR. CHOATES ) ARGUMENT
After recess Mr.. Choato began his ar
gumeut. He declared that no authority
had been shown for the Indictment.
The counsel for the people" he CON
tnued. comes here empty handed. Ii
the means alleged against the American
Tobacco Company are legal for an indi-
yidual. they are lawful for q corporation.
The means employed by ,.e defendants
were such as were sustained by the law
for centuries. ~ the American Tobacco
Company employs certain means 10 over
come rival 300 the sale OF cigarettes and
push that competitor out of the business.
how can that bee termed conspiracy
Let MS see what the logical conclusion
of the indictment would De. They We're
the principal manufacturers of cigarettes.
Suppose they conclude not TO sell any Of
their products. Then they are indictable
for not selling and restricting trade ae-
cOrdins 10 the contention made by the
district attorney Is that sensible? The
members of corporation cannot be
charged with conspiracy for conducting
a business which is lawful. Rivals Do
business cannot agree among themselves
TO limit the supply of material and the
price thereof 10 the injury Of the public.
There Is mo- doubt about that. but Alere
the agreement of one corporation is aimed
only at "a rival IN business, the ease Is
qulte different"
a COMPARISON.
Mr Cboate said the corporation was
indicted for refusing 10 sell. except under
its own stipuat0ns. The corporation
was under no obligations 10 sell rs
railroad is To- carry passengers No man
b. bound 20 benefit his rival Every man
has % right 20 conduct his business as he
chooses. So long as be Injuries no one DE
is under am obligation 10 benefit. II
This were not so. the corporation con-
trolling the various newspapers would
bee guilty OF violating the law in fixing
the price Of "a newspaper at 2 cents
cents. or I cent. But who wCUd say the
newspaper corporations mad not the right
10 dx the price Of their papers2'
Mr. Choate here concluded his argu-
neut and 10 was agreed that both sides
should hand up their briefs by Deem
Der lst Decision on the demurrer may
rot be given for several weeks
nm n tfgef,fnfs kgVf.