The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-07-10


reflects public opinion by TINS nc
means that ten men of twelve In the COM
munity think the defendants gulily.
That might be. but it would be iact
of no importance. The object of trial
is not TO get at public opinion, but % as
certain the fact of the commission OF the
crime charged by the accused. II what
we wanted was public opinion, we shouid
ascertain II by a vote. not by jury trial
The disagreement of a jury under such
circumstance proves nothing except that
the trial has broken down. and for the
result I'm this case there are several rea-
sons TO be thankful.
one OF these Is that there Is grave rea-
son TO doubt whether there is anything
really criminal in the acts with which
the defendants were charged. We doubt
If one man in 4 hundred knows distinct
" what they were indicted for. Or could
describe the crime with which they were
charged so as 70 make il ineligible. Re
vond the fact that they did their best 20
prevent the sale Of goods produced hy
rivals, and 10 control the market. we
have seen no clear description Of their
offence. and Mr.. Choate's strongest point
for them was that this was no more than
is done by everybody in trade including
their rivals. Nobody was produced who
had been oppressed or injured. The lead
ing victim was a Western millionaire
whose account OF his dealings with the
Tobacco Company showed that h. was
not I'm need Of protection from anybody.
and a member Of the firm of Park * Tile
ford. who are milionalres traders cngag-
ed IN cutting prices whenever they
can. There is no pretence that the To-
bacco Company Expresses the public.
Even when We examine the accusa-
ton az laid i'm the Indictment We shall
find II very hard 10 believe that the de-
PENDANTS ever did anything criminal DO
its nature. The charge against them as
described al the time was conspiracy and
violation Of section l6S of the penal Code
which embraces acts Injurious 90 trade
or commerce. In effect. the defendants
were charged with conducting a trust
or monopoly the alleged offence being
n msdemeanOr punishable on conviction
with years imprisonment or "a fine Of
500. or both. The evidence i'm the case
was presented by the National Cigarette
and Tobacco Company otherwise known
as the Admiral cigarette manufacturers
The complaint set forth that the ac-
cused men mon0polized the business OF
making ana selling paper cigarettes.
They constitute what is known ass the
Cigarette Trust. The history of the
crime was that I'm 1859 number OF the
most prominent cigarette manufacturers
met and agreed on combination TO con-
troll and fix the price of paper cigarettes
at t. certain figure. As consideration OF
the project gave rise TO the suspicion
that the combination might bee Illegal ID
was decided 20 drop the combination ana
proceed on a different plan 50 boz octo-
Der Of the same year the american lo-
baco Company corporiuoh' was
formed under the laws of New Jersey.
After the formation of this corporation
they began 20 do business and had piac-
tically a monopoly of the trade. 1hey
sold to customers under what was known
as the consignment agreement. under
which the purchaser was obliged TO stlpu-
late that he would not buy from amy other
manufacturers Such is the crime
charged
Now. it must be remembered that say
ing that certain acts constitute ID crime
will not make them criminal according
10 the ordinary meaning of language. a
crime is understood by everybody 10 ID.
some act which is productive OF evil OK
some kind 10 some one. and which me
public has an interest In preventing by
punishment. There has been a great deal
OF discussion among lawyers as 10
whether the Legislature in our system
has the power 10 make an Innocent act
criminal: but whether it has or not. any
such attempt must IN the long rum de-
feat it's object. because iuries will not
send men 10 prison for acts or when me
criminal nature cannot Doe perceived.
We are undoubtedly Witnessing an or
ganized effort on the part Of the dema-
gogic press. and those In sympathy with
IL I'm tho Legislatures. 70 bring this to
test. and. under pretence OF breaking mp
monOpolies and Trusts. make the ordi-
nary operations Of comnHrce criminal
exactly as was done some centuries ago
all over Europe The difference Is that
down 10 comparatively modern times the
world really believed that the 'resrat-
ors" and "forestallers' and "engrosscrs'
were criminals and owing 20 the small
supply Of food and constant danger Of
famine there was some ground for tho
feeling that attempts 10 control the
food market were "a serious evil.
But the feeling has died out. because
I'm the progress Of time. the idea under
living such statutes has proved 10 have
nothing itself 20 rest on In fact, our
antitrust. anti-monopoly statutes are
i'm nine cases out Of ten recognized as
farce even by the people who pass
them Even i'm the case Of wheat and
corn and meat the continual lowering
Of prices accompanying the creation or
trusts has made the cutlery about OPP
preston absurd. and when we come 70
a luxury like tobacco twelve sensible
men do not find 81 easy 70 agree 10 send
one manufacturer 10 Jail because ne
drives another out Of the market
II would be hardly an eXag2erlton
10 say that the object Of every one going
into business Is 20 DO just what the
tobacco men have been indicted Tor 90
ing. T. o.. every manufacturer or trader
wants 10 control the market Wheln'r
this IS done by a trust or corporation
or an individual. n can be successful only
I'm so far as IL excludes competitors. tNl-
dence was offered on the trial torsHow
that the defendants acted under the best
legal advice throughout. but this was OK
cluded on the principle that legal advice
constitutes no defence 20 criminal
charge The principle IS we'll enough set-
tied. II would be no answer 90 charge
OF murder or arson TO say that n had
been committed by advice Of counsel; but
I'm this case what the defendants were
really trying 70 do was not 20 commit
n crime. but 20 carry on their business
lawfully The doubt which evidently
lodged itself IN the minds OF the Disagree
Ing Jurors was. "Can II be a crime 10
carry on your business?"-New York
Evening Post.
'rhe little son Of Mr. r.. r. Pearman.
who was 50 severely burned July ith IS