The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-19
BOYCOTTED BY A TRUST
EVIDENCE AGAINST OFFICERS OF
THE TOBACCO MONOPOLY.
Testimony of Il ST. Louis Jobber Who
Could Not Buy Unless He Sold
Trust Goods Exclusively.

NEW YORK, June 1S.-The trial of Off
GERS of the American Tobacco Company in
dicted for alleged conspiracy under the anti
trust law of this State, was resumed to-
day. Theodore e Allen was recalled by the
prosecution and asked again concerning his
suit against the defendants for commission
earned as alleged, in bringing the compa-
nies together. He declared that all differ
ences had since been amicably adjusted and
that he was now on good terms with all
of them.
An attempt on the part of the prosecution
to bring out evidence as to the methods of
the trust prior to 1890 was objected to by
Mr.. Choate and the objection was sus-
tanned. The witness, Mr.. Allen, testified
that in conversation Mr.. Duke, previous to
the formation of the combination, told him
it cost his firm $685. 900 for advertising in
1883. Ginter told him it cost his firm $3.50, ,0OC
for advertising the same year There was
some talk as to the remedy for competi-
ton.
On ross-examination the witness said
that the consolidation was formed for the
purpose of promoting economy in the man
ufacture of cigarettes. He had received a
letter from Allen and Ginter on Sept. g.
1889, in which the firm stated that they
were averse to joining a trust In literal
meaning of the term but If other compa-
MES were considering a combination they
might be induced to join in the plan. Wit
ness said that the present price of ciga-
rettes was Is per cent. less than 1t was
when the companies were doing business in
dependentlX.
Mr.. Fuller requested that the witness pro-
duce in court tomorrow a letter which he
received from Einstein and Townsend on
May 27, 1897, asking him to lend his aid to
the prosecution. He was also asked to pro-
duce a copy of the letter he sent in answer.
Mr.. Fuller occupied more than an hour put
ting questions relative to trade marks and
their value to manufacturers to the wit
ness, all of which were ruled out
Peter Hauptmann, of the firm of Peter
Hauptmann & Co., dealers and jobbers in
tobacco and cigars, was called after Mr..
Allen had become so wearied that he asked
to be doa fr tn tine Sd day os a ss
fed that previous to 1893 his firm handled
about 15,000000 trust cigarettes yearly. In
1898 he bought cigarettes from the National
Cigarette Company and after that the
American Tobacco Company refused to fill
his orders, claiming that he had violated
the agreement by which the trust held the
jobbers. He went to the st. Louis head
quarters Of the American Tobacco Company
and had a conversation with Mr.. Brown.
The latter told him that he must quit sell
ing Admiral cigarettes or the trust would
quit selling him the goods of it's manufac-
ture. Brown told him the American Tobacco
Company sold 81 or SO per cent of all the
cigarettes manufactured in the country and
did not see why he would not sell trust
goods exclusively. He was told by Mr..
Brown that if he stuck to the trust he would
sell 22,000.000 cigarettes.
Witness was asked by District Attorney
Olcott if he gave in to Mr.. Brown, and re-
piled that he did not A letter sent to the
witness by the American Tobacco Company
was offered in evidence and read II was
to the effect that the company felt con-
strained to discontinue sending him further
goods except at net prices without discount.
Not until June, 1896, was the witness able
to purchase goods of the American Tobacco
Company's manufacture. Spot cash had al
ways been paid by him for the trust goods.
The trust not only refused TO sell him to-
bacco, but he also was not allowed to buy
goods from other firms in st. Louis that
handled the trust cigarettes. He said he
never was an agent of the trust. Witness
was still in the witness chair when the case
was adjourned until tomorrow morning.