New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-01-02
tained convincing proof Of the presence
OF radium in the sun may be due to the
depth at which the substance hides.
THE TOBACCO TRUST CASE.

THE TOBACCO TRUST CASE.
The decision OF the United States gu.
preme Court in the Tobacco Trust case,
which Is now before it on appeal. will be
awaited with interest because the case
VIII afford the court an opportunity OF
further defining the Sherman act When
the tobacco case was before the Circuit
Court in this district it washed that the
law forbade any combination between
previous commercial competitors. ire
spective of whether it was or was not
harmful TO the public in its conse-
quences or oppressive in its methods.
But it is 10 be observed that the Attor-
ney General in his brief. if its intent is
fairly represented in the newspapers.
did not rely upon that construction of
the law, but charged the Tobacco Trust
with oppressive acts in restraint of
trade 1t was not merely because its
members had voluntarily agreed no
longer to compete with each other that
he sought its dissolution, but because it
had used compulsion TO prevent the COM
petition of non-members.
With regard to the laws application
TO railroad combinations. the attitude of
the Supreme Court has been made COM
paratively clear, the court having held
practically along the line of the Circuit
Courts decision in the tobacco case that
any combination between competing car
riers in substantial restraint of trade is
forbidden. But even in regard to rail-
roads it is not certain that a majority
of the Supreme Court will go so far as
that. Justice Brewer one of the majority
in the Northern Securities case, giving
his opinion that the law forbade only
unreasonable restraint of trade and that
the Northern Securities combination was
in unreasonable restraint of trade.
With regard 10 industrial combna-
tons, however. the law is in greater
need of calculation. In the earliest case
of this sort before it, the Knight case
(the Sugar Trust case). the court held
that the combination of sugar manufact-
uring companies was a manufacturing
combination and not one in restraint OF
interstate commerce. The fact that the
article manufactured by the combination
subsequently entered into interstate
commerce did not bring the combination
under the law. This decision is the main
reliance of the Tobacco Trust and the
Standard Oil Trust in their defence.
Other industrial cases decided by the
Supreme Court are supposed 10 have
modified the Knight case in some re-
spects, but this is not certain. for in the
other industrial cases the acts COM
planned of were in their nature flagitious
and directly affected interstate trade.
The Addyston pipe case had TO do with
manufacturers. but the combination was
not manufacturing combination. As
manufacturers the companies in the pool
remained independent. Their agreement
parcelled out the trade in their products
in different states of the West and South
and they raised prices TO the public
through fictitious bidding on public con-
tracts.
In Ioewe VS.. LAWYER. the Danbury
hatters' case. a manufactured product
was involved. and Judge Coke in his
opinion regarding the Tobacco Trust
said. $50 far as the business affected
lis concerned, the only distinction be-
tween the knight case and the Loewe-
LAWYER case is that in one the cts
complained Of related 10 the manufact-
''ure and sale of sugar and in the other
"the manufacture and sale of hats But
another distinction is apparent. In the
sugar case the court said that the prod
net of the combustion subsequently be-
came an object of interstate trade. In
the Danbury boycott case the acts COM
planned of affected the article while il
was an object of interstate trade
A combination Of railroads directly af
fects interstate commerce because they
are instruments for the carrying of that
commerce. But il is vet 10 be shown
that the Supreme Court will hold that
combination of producers of An article
that enters into interstate commerce
comes within the prohibition of the act
simply because its members voluntarily
abandon competition with each other Il
il does not, in accordance with the
knight case. then what acts must such
a combination be guilty of 10 be open TO
attack under the Sherman act? Per-
haps the Tobacco Trust case will clear
up this question.