Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-07-11
FILED |. |
COnlplaintin Government Suit
Against Tobacco Trust
Under Sherman Law
Right Of ioVerment to Sworn
.AnsWefsls Waived Fear
ing Immunity Plea
Law Makes Conspiracy in Re.
Stfdint OF Law Criminal
Prosecutions Likely
appointment Of Receivers
/ viii IlGDGDd mn Character

Will Depend on IndfdCtef
Of Testimony IAdduced
4 New York, July 10-J James G. Nc
Reynolds, the special assistant at
torney general appointed to prose
cute the so-called Tobacco Trust, =
declared today after the filing of the
complaint in the case, that the ques-
ton whether he would urge the court
to appoint receiver for the various
companies would depend entirely the
evidence secured from witnesses sum-
moned upon his complaint. He said
also that criminal prosecution of the
defendants he named ID the com
PLANT is highly probable, as the Sher-1
man law, under which this action is
brought, makes conspiracy in re-
straint Of trade criminal offence.
The significance Of the complaint
filed by Mr.. McReynolds today is a.
waiver by him of the right of de-
handing answers under oath from
the corporations and individuals
named as defendants In his COM
plant. as the making of such an an
swer under oath might confer inn
munity from prosecution.
re The tsy, 4 = ~, 4 = y
ants and named as witnesses are
James B. Duke, president Of the Am
erican Tobacco Company; John b.
Cobb, president of the American CT
gar Company; VIM. X. Harris. chair
man of the board of managers OF
Bright American Tobacco Company;
Caleb G. Dula, vice president Of the
American Tobacco Company and di-.
rector Of the American Snuff Com
pany: Percival S. Hill, vice presi-
dent of the American Tobacco; Com
pany; w. c. Reed, agent in the Unit
ed States for the Imperial Tobacco
Company Of Great Britain; Thomas
F. Ryan, Pierre Lorillard, Peter A.
Widener, Anthony N. Hardy, all di-
| rectors of the American Tobacco
Company.
j Mr.. McReynolds appeared before
| the clerk OF court alone to file the
complaint, but the petition is signed
by Attorney General Chas. J. Bona
lparte, Milton d. Purdy. and Edwin
p. GrosVener and James G. McReyn-
o1ds. assistants to. the attorney gen
eral. ... sSs
There was no hearing before the
court, today's action being confined
to fling the complaint. Mr.. Nc
4 Reynolds said the next step in the
case would be the serving of notice
of complaint upon the defendants
and the taking of their reply or de
nurrer. Further, that witnesses
would be called before the court
i and the taking of evidence would be
4 gin. AT the conclusion Of this the
1 assistant attorney general would asI,
i the court to take whatever action
4 in the case he may consider desira
4 BILE.
In reply to question whether be
i intends to urge the court to appoint
4 receivers for the various corpora
1 tions, Mr.. McReynolds said he could
only decide that after the hearing
Of the evidence by the witnesses.
What precedent have you for ask
4 ing for the appointment of receiv
i. ers?a he was asked.
The Sherman law under which
q this action is brought, replied Mr.
4 McReynolds, provides that the eour
], may restrain and prevent operation
J, of combinations. If the court and,
d that the appointment Of receivers i.
4 necessary to prevent the operation o.
this combination it may appoin
Il them. We ask the court to enjoiH
these companies IL 1t did SO i
q might prevent men from baying to
bacco, but If the receivers are ap
pointed the business would be cen
tinued, the public would not be EN-
Il barrassed By inability to purchas,
tobacco and the receivers might sci
the various factories to independent
concerns, thus effectively dissolyint
s, the combination 4
Mr. McReynolds said he had hi
idea how soon the taking of evidenc,
would begin.