New-York tribune., 1906-11-10
TOBACCO CONCERNS UP
rRI7ST on DEFENSIVE.
Delaney NicOH 4rgaes That In
dicfments 4re InUGlid.

,4. .ueqe5 violations Of the Antitrust law
- American Tobacco Company were argued
= and con yesterday when arguments on the
sa,,,,vrers OF the MacAndrews & Forbes Com
..,y and the J. s Young Company. subsidiary
sornorat;ons under Indictment came up before
,,sce t4oi,gb in the United States Circuit Court.
80 Hough took the briefs Of the attorneys in
.be case Yesterday and reserved decision.
rba attendants were represented by eX-Dis-
.-.rt Attorney Delaney NicoN and John d.
-.,5ssv appeared for the MacAndrews & Forbes
0omnany and the J. s Young Company, Of Bal
.-,ore while ex-Assistant United States Attor-
rey Ernest Z. Baldwin. appeared for Carl jung
t,r,b president Of the MacAndrews & Forbes
company. and Howard c. Young. president Of
,be ] 5 Young COMPANY who were included in
,be indictments as individuals. Henry W. Taft,
6 special Assistant Attorney General, repre-
sented the government
Austen G. Fox. who represented the New York
Central IN the rebating cases was an interested
sDsctator. although not connected with the case,
It said
Nr Nicol reviewed the indictments. Sixty
FIVE overt acts are charged against the defend
snts including restraint of trade by the corpora
,ions and a conspiracy to accomplish the same
result on the part OF the two individual defend
sBts. Nj Nicoll maintained that these acts had
m effect on interstate commerce. He told of an
alleged agreement wherein the MacAndrews &
Forbes Company. which makes the licorice paste
used in making plug tobacco, We're to supply
the trust manufacturers with that commodity.
and the J 5 Young Company. the independent
manufacturers The latter. it was charged. were
forced TO pay a higher price than The trust did.
suppose I should wish 10 buy lcorice paste.
under which agreement would get it?" queried
Judge Hough.
Your honor would be regarded a very in
6ependent manufacturer said Mr.. Nicoll. with
nut g smile. and supplied under the agreement
by the Young Company.
This combination. conspiracy or alleged
monopoly we contend declared Mr. Ncoll, had
no effect on interstate commerce. and that it
does not as alleged. fan within the condenna-
ZION Of the Antitrust law"
That brings us TO consider what IS inter
state commerce or trade" suggested Judge
Hough.
M Nic0lI replied that the proof would show
that the defendants sold their product at the
factories Ia New York, Camden and Baltimore
and parted with title TO the goods so manu-
fscturel when the latter We're shipped 10 vari-
Gus points throughout the United States. That
was its relation and only relation with inter
M Nicou cited the knight case. which, he
said had been repeatedly confirmed and affirmed
and never questioned. The charges against the
defendants. he said. were identical with the ale
cations IN the knight case, wherein it was
charged that an attempt was made to control
the sugar trade by buying the stock IN four
sugar refneries in Philadel phia
Mr Nic0ll argued that the combination as al
leged was not form Of trust in the restraint
Of trade and that the indictments We're bad be-
cause two or more persons were not indictable
for violation Of section Of the Antitrust
act
During the afternoon session z. z. Baldwin.
representing the individual defendants. con-
tended that the indictments We're invalid. the de-
fendants having been improperly Joined in the
drawing
Special Attorney General Taft argued that the
accusations We're proper, and the acts alleged
well within the scope Of the Antitrust law. The
facts alleged. he said. plainly showed a COM
hnstOn in restraint Of trade.