Kansas City daily journal., 1897-01-28
The Indictments Against Monopolists

great wall for more than eighty centuries"
The Indictments Against MonopoIists.
From the Boston Herald.
Some six eight months ago the di-
reCtors and officers of the American To-
bacco Company were indicted by a grand
jury in the city of New York for conspir-
ing to commit acts injurious to trade and
commerce. and for conducting business in
the state pursuant to certain contracts
arrangements and agreements intended to
prevent or restrain competition in the sup
ply and price of an article in common use
i'll the state. More specifically, they were
charged with conspring to coerce and
compel all wholesale dealers and jobbers
to sell their cigarettes at an arbitrarily
fixed price by refusing to supply them TO
those who sold below such price; to coerce
and compel wholesale dealers and iobbers
to deal exclusively in their cigarettes by
refusing to supply them to those who dealt
in cigarettes of any other manufacture;
to fix and maintain the price of their cigar
cites by unlawful agreement to fix and
control the production, manufacture and
output of cigarettes. Two indictments
were found-one under the conspiracy sec
tion of the penal code, and the other under
the amended anti-monopoly law of last
year The offense charged in each case is
misdemeanor, punishable by fine or inn
prisonment, or both.
1t was objected on the part of the de-
fendants-James B. Duke and nine others
that the indictment for conspiracy was
defective, because :he first essential of n
conspiracy was absent. The indictment
was not against the corporation, but
against the directors, and it was argued
that, as a matter of fact. it was within
the meaning of the indictment-one per-
son-that did the act charged, and the
act of one could not be a conspiracy. 1t
was further demurred to the second IN
dictment that cigarettes are not a neces-
sity. and for that reason do not come with
in the law of articles of common use. No
public injury could be shown from the
transaction by which the sale of cigar
cites was regulated. The things charged
against the tobacco company were, fur
thcr, things which the individual has the
right to do, and there is no difference be-
tween a private corporation and an in
dividual In the eye of the law. The sec
ton under which this Indictment was
brought was. moreover declared to be con-
trary to the fourteenth constitutional
amendment, inasmuch as it provides that
1t is unlawful for private corporation to
do things which 1t is not unlawful for in
dividuals to do. 1t was argued that if
contract is Illegal. it is because 1t is against
public policy. The injury DONE and not
whether it be done by an individual or a
private corporation, is the legal considera-
ton.
These arguments, together with others
in support of the indictments, were SUD-
mitted last November, and a decision of
the judge of the court of general sessions
has just been rendered by which the de-
murrer is disallowed and indictments sus-
tanned. As to the point of corporate LA
bility, the court did not think that indi-
viduals could shield themselves from The
consequences of wrongdoing by pleading
that their wrongful acts were corporate
ones. If two or more members of n body
corporate enter into an unlawful agree
ment, they cannot be allowed to plead
lawful association for certain purposes in
bar of prosecution for unlawful combina-
ton. ITO rule that the officers and agents
of Il corporation are relieved from individ-
ual criminal liability for all they may do
under the color of corporate acts would
amount, in many cases, to n suspension
of the law The judge also ruled that
the character of the trade to be ronopo-
li2ed is of no concern, SO long as 1t Is
lawful one. The contention that any num-
ber of men In combination may lawfully
do what any one of them may do by him
self was, of course, brushed aside. AS has
frequently been pointed out in these col
umns, the courts recognize the fact that
there is potency in numbers when COM
bined which the law cannot overlook.
where injury is the consequence. There
WILL therefore. be an opportunity TO pass
on the question whether the methods and
devices resorted to by the American To-
bacco Company to restrain lawful trade
and commerce. and to create a monopoly,
constitute a crime under the law OF New
York. incidentally, the result of such a
trial will go far to determine whether the
great commercial trusts can, by the oper
alton of the criminal law of the state in
which most of them have their headquar-
tera, be effectually suppressed.