The Wichita daily eagle., 1897-06-16
SHRIVER ON TRIAL
NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT WHO
WOULDN'T TELL.

Whether . Sugar Hsgnats 10 Better
Than . Newspaper Man or Stock
Broker Worse Remaining to be Decided
When Court Adjourns-Trial of the To-
bacco Trust Cases In New York Proceeds
With Ponderous Delibeation.
Washington. June 15.-The trial of
John S. Shriver. correspondent Of the
New York Mail and Express. the fourth
OF the -ecreant witnesses before the SEN
ate sugar investigating committee Of
1894. began before Judge Bradley this
morning. OF the other three witnesses
similarly charged, Broker Chapman was
convicted and has served thirty days
sentence in Jail and Messrs. Havemeyer
and Sea-les, president and secretary, re-
spectively. OF the American Sugar Re-
f1ning company, were acquitted by order
OF the court. Mr.. E. ]. Edwards. New
York correspondent of the Philadelphia
Press, whose trial will follow that Of
Mr.. Shriver, was in the court room as
were a number of senators and other
prominent officials subpoenaed to testi-
~ in the case.
Mr.. Shriver's alleged offense is that he
refused to give the names of his aurhor-
tiles for statements in certain dispatches
sent his paper. No trouble was expert
enced in securing a jury and then the
government presented its case.
There was nothing of striking interest
in the testimony presented, being largely
the same as that given at previous trials.
The government at O'Clock rested its
case and then Judge Dittenhoeffer, Of
counsel for Shriver, moved to dismiss,
on six grounds, one of them being that,
as newspaper man, the communication
10 Shriver came within the scope of priv
ileged confidential communications.
Judge Dittenhoeffer had not concluded
his argument on the motion TO order al
acquittal when the court adjourned for
tn eday.
TOBACCO TRUST CASES
New York, June 15.-Judge Fitzgerald
decided today that the trial of the Amer
ican Tobacco officials should proceed
with the jury originally selected. w. ].
BryoD against whom certain charges of
indiscretion were made, remains a juror.
Judge Fitzgerald, when the proceedings
began. denied District Attorney Olcott's
motion TO have Mr.. Bryon removed. He
also denied a motion made by Lawyer
Choate 10 have Juror Fash examined in
regard 10 his interview with Reporter
Piper Mr.. Choate then said that he
would demand TO have the attention Of
the grand jury called TO Reporter Piper,
the editor and the proprietor OF the
Morning Journal and Advertiser. for
having engaged in a conspiracy TO in
f,uence the action OF the justice against
the defense. District attorney Olcott
then opened the case for the prosecution
Mr. Olcott told of the formation OF the
company. He said:
prior to October II, 1889. there were
five great cigarette manufacturing con-
Germs, Allen & Ginter, Duke Sons &
Co, The Kinney Manufacturing compa-
nv, w. S. Kimball & Co.. and Goodwin
& Co. They had 80 per cent Of the
trade These five concerns came to-
gether."
The American Tobacco company was
Incorporated January %, 1880, in the
state of New Jersey. No crime was COM
mitted by that Incorporation, but I viii
try TO show you that the methods de-
clared and carried cut under that agree
ment of Incorporation were a crime.
These five concerns maintained their
separate establishments and continued
to make and sell their individual brands
but when a bill Of goods was sold, say.
for instance, by Allen &, GInter, the bill
was made out for Allen G. Ginters
branch of the American Tobacco con1pa-
ny.
This is most significant. Il shows that
this corporation was not formed to con-
duct a cigarette business as an ordina-
ry corporation composed Of individuals,
but was a corporation Of corporations,
not to start a cigarette business, but
simply from the aggrandized power TO
strangle competition.
They sent a circular TO the tobacco
trade, saying that discount of a GER
tain percentage would be made to the
jobbers who bought Of the branches.
ANY jobber? Oh no: but any jobber
who handles cigarettes in satisfactory
manner
Satisfactory to whom? Satisfactory
to the manufacturer? Men with money
and credits and business reputation
could no: buy the goods Of the Amsri-
can Tobacco company unless, in The
opinion OF the company. they handled
their goods in a manner satisfactory 10
the company"
Mr.. Olcott then took up the provisions
OF the agreement.
There is nothing that could not be |
covered under the statute laws If such |
trickery was allowed - go unpunished."
said Mr.. Olcott. This is the system |
under which the American Tobacco com |
pany disposed OF its goods from March |
/. 1892. UP to the time of IT'S indictment. |
The company was not indicted for striv- |
ing 10 overcome competition by fair |
means. not for using its grasp on 80 per |
osrs Of the cigarette trade. but because |
il used its power over unwilling jo5bers |
to prevent them from selling other ci-
xare:tes''
Joseph Park. OF the grocery firm Of |
Park & T:lford. was the first witness. |
The gist of his testimony. as brought |
ou, by the direct and DISCRIMINATION.
was that Park & Tilfori had an agree
nent with the American Tobacco COM
oany. and that under IL his firm was /
unable 10 make very large profits. i, |
vas stipulated that no other cigarette
vas 70 be handled by the firm. but the
National Cigarette and Tobacco cornpa-
ny's cigarette came on the market. and /
Park & Tilford bought 5000 cigarettes
from them.
When Your