The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-07-12

able.
New York, July 10.-James c. Rey-
nolds, the special assistant atto ney
general appointed to prosecute the So
called tobacco trust, declared today,
after filing the complaint in the case
that the question whether he would
urge the court to appoint a receiver for
the various companies would depend
entirely upon the evidence secured
from the witnesses summoned upon
his complaint. He said also that GRIM
prosecution of some of the defendants
he named in the bill of complaint is
highly probable and that the Sherman
law would make conspiracy in re-
straint of trade criminal Offense. A
significant feature Of the complaint
filed by Mr. McReynOlds today is the
waiver by him of the right of demand
ing answers under oath from corpora
tiOnS and individuals named as de-
PENDANTS in his complaint as the max
ing of such answer under oath might
confer immunity from prosecution.
The individuals named as defendants
and named as witnesses are James b.
Duke, president Of the American To-
bacco Company; John B. Cobb, pres
ident Of the American Cigar Cola
pany; Wm X. Harriss, chairman of
the board of managers of the British
American Tobacco Company; Caleb G.
Dula vice president of the American
Tobacco Company, and director Of
the American Snuff Company; Fer
cival S. Hill. vice president of the
American Tobacco Company; W. G.
Reed, agent in the United States for
the Imperial Tobacco Company. of
Great Britain; Thomas F. Ryan, Pierre
Lorillard, Peter A. B. Widener, An
thony N Brady, and practically all Of
the directors of the American Tobacco
Company.
Mr.. McReynolds appeared before the
clerk of the court alone to file the
complaint, but the petition is signed
by Attorney General Charles J. Bona
parte. Milton D. Pardy and Edwin
P Grosvenor and James C. Mercy
nolds, assistant to the attorney general.
There was no hearing before the
court, today's action being confined to
filing the complaint.
Mr.. McReynolds said that the next
step would be the serving of the notice
of the complaint upon the defendants
and the filing of their reply or denlurr-
er to the complaint. After that the
witnesses would be called before the
court and the taking of evidence would
begin. At the conclusion of this the
assistant attorney general would ask
the court to take whatever action in
the case he may consider desirable.
In reply to a question whether he
intended to urge the court to appoint
receivers for the various corporations
Mr.. McReynolds said he could only
decide that after hearing the evidence
given by the witnesses.
what precedent have you for ask
ing for the appointment of receivers
he was asked.
The Sherman law under which this
action is brought" replied Mr.. Nc
Reynolds. provides that the court may
restrain and prevent the operations Of
a combination. If the court finds that
the appointment of receivers is neces-
sary to prevent operation of this COM
bination it may appoint them. We ask
the court to enjoin these companies.
If it did so it might prevent men from
buying tobacco. but if receivers are
appointed the business would be contin
ued, the public would not be embar-
raised by inability to purchase tobacco
and the receiver might sell the va
rious factories to independent concerns
thus effectively dissolving the combi-
nation"
Mr. McReynolds said he ad no idea
how soon the taking of evidence would
begin.
The petition filed by the government
today is directed against the American