Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-01-11
TOBACCO MEN LUCKY
Jury Acquits Them on Several
Specific Charges.
OTHERS NOT FORTUNATE
Court Finds Corporations Guilty of
Licorice Monopoly.
HAVE AN ILLEGAL COMBINATION
Charge of Conspiracy is Not Upheld
by the Jurymen After One
Hours Deliberation.
HAVE AN ILLEGAL COMBINATION

NEW YORK, January 1.-THE jury in
the lcorice-paste cases, involving the
charge of violating the Sherman antitrust
act in forming a combination to control
the supply of the paste, which is used in
the manufacture of plug tobacco, last night
returned verdict of acquittal as against
the individual defendants Karl Jungbluth
and Howard E. Young, the latter of Balti-
more. and a verdict of guilty as against
the corporate interests, namely, the Mac
Andrews & Forbes Company and the ]. S.
Young Company of Baltimore.
The corporations were found guilty on
two counts, one of forming illegal COM
bination and the other of being monop-
oily. The corporations were acquitted on
the count charging conspiracy.
Counsel for the defense at once made mo-
tons for an arrest of judgment and asked
for stay. Judge Hough fixed Monday
to hear arguments on the motion.
The final summing up of counsel in the
case was begun yesterday in the United
States circuit court. For three weeks evil
dence has been taken by both the govern
ment and the four defendants-the MacAn-
drews & Forbes Company, the j. S. Young
Company of Baltimore, Karl Jungbluth and
Howard Il. Ioung-who were charged col
lectively with having conspired and COM
biSed to monopolze the licorice-paste in
dustry in the United States.
The evidence was largely documen Try,
the government having in the presentation
of its evidence introduced over 275 ex-
hbits, consisting of private letters passing
between the various defendants relative to
the Hcorice-paste business. These letters
the government forced the defendants to
give up after a fight. which carried to
the United States Supreme Court.
Denied Intent to Monopolize.
The defense contended that there was no
actual attempt to monopolize or restrain
trade shown, or discrimination against the
independent tobacco manufacturers.
: The opening argument for the defense
was made by former District Attorney De-
lancey Nicoll.
Mr.. Nicoll charged that although the
government was nominally the prosecutor
the trial had its real inception in the minds
of the independent tobacco men of the
country who hoped, under the ramifica-
tons of the Sherman antitrust law to
learn the secrets of the Continental To-
bacCo Company He declared that there
had been no proof OF illegal combination
or conspiracy or attempt to restrain or
monopolIze the licorice-paste business. The
evidence. he said, showed that the de-
PENDANT had willingly furnished the indie
pendents with all the paste they needed to
carry on their business.
Mr.. NicOll also asked the jury to remem-
Der that the Continental Tobacco Company
itself used 81 per cent Of all the paste
manufactured in this country.
The only combination shown. Mr.. Nicoll
concluded had been the attempt of the de-
PENDANTS to effect a situation that would
give them the control of the raw root mar
ket in the orient and to enable them 10
get years supply of raw root to protect
them from being deprived OF lcorice paste
30 necessary in the conduct of their bust
ness. All men, he argued, had right I'M
der the law to protect their business inter-
ests, and more than that the defendants
had not done.
Independents Not Behind It.
Special Attorney General Taft, in the
concluding argument for the government,
said he regarded this as the most imnor