The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-07-11
TOBACCO TRUST CASE Reynolds Files His Com
 plaint. MAY ASK FOR RECEIVER
The Defendants Will Probably Be
 Prosecuted Criminally.
The American Tobacco Company and Its Various Subsidiary Concerns Are Charged With Having An
 Illegal Combination.

New York. July 10.-James c. Mo Reynolds. the special assistant attor- 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 Tor the various companies would de- pend entirely upon the evidence secur- cd from the witnesses summoned upon his complaint.
 He also said that criminal proseeu- ton of the defendants he named in the complaint is highly probable and that the sherman law, under which this &C., JSn Is brought. makes a conspiracy in restraint Of trade, Q criminal offense A significant feature of the complaint filed by MT. McReynolds today is the waiver by him of the right of demand ing answers under oath from corpora tions and individuals as defendants in his complaint as the making of such answer under oath might confer im- munity from prosecution.
 The indivuals named as defendants and named as witness are James B. Duke. president of the American To- oacco Company; John B. Cobb. presi- &Cht SA shO AAHChtC0n SIBaT SOInpdHye William K. Harris. chairman of the board of managers of the British American Tobacco Company; Caleb C. Dula, vice president of the American Tobacco Company and a director of the American Snuff Company; Percival s. Hill. vice president of the American Tobacco; W. c. Reed, agent in the Uni ted States for the Imperial Tobacco Company of Great Britain; Thomas F. A A. ner. Anthoy N. Brady and practically all of the directors of the American Tobacco Company.
 Mir. 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. Purdy and Edwin P. sGrovenor and James c. McReynolds, assistants to the Attorney General.
 There was no hearing before the court, today's action being confined to filing the complaint
 Take Defendanfs's Reply.
 MT. McReynolds said the next step in the case would be the serving of the notice of the complaint upon the defendants and the taking of their reply or demurrer. Further that the witnesses would be called before the court and the taking of testimony would begin. At the conclusion or this the assistant attorney general would ask the court to take what ever action in the case he may con slider desirable.
 In reply to q question whether he intended to urge the court to appoint receivers for the various corporations. MT. McReynolds said he could only de- eide that after the hearing of the evil dence given by the witness.
 What precedent have you for ask ing the appointment of receivers?'
 "The Sherman law. under which this action Is brought" replied Mir. Mo 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 1t may appoint them. We ask the court to enjoin these companies. If it does so, it might prevent men from buying tobacco. but if receivers are appointed the business would be continued. the public would not be embarrassed by inability to purchase tobacco and the receiver might sell of the various factories to independent concerns, thus effectively dissolVing the combination"