New-York tribune., 1911-01-12
WOULD DEFINE MONOPOLY
Two interpretations Given in
Tobacco Suit.
JUSTICES ASK QUESTIONS
A Matter of Intent, Wickersham
Holds-Must Be Specific
Acts, Say Defendants.

Washington, Jan. LIN the closing ar
Euments to-day I'm the contest before the
Supreme Court OF the United States over
the proposed dissolution of the American
Tobacco Company. the issue between 'he
trusts" and the government became more
sharply defined than ever before. This
was particularly true In regard to the IN
terpretation OF the ''monOpoiZing' section
Of the sherman antitrust law.
Interpreting this section OF the law Ju-
MUS Parker, speaking for John G. John-
son. who was unable TO be In court. SAID
on behalf Of the tobacco organization tha'
the size OF an organization or the mere
power possessed by 1t was not the criterion
OF a monopoly. II was argued that there
must be an exclusion or attempt TO eN-
clude others from interstate trade by
means at least unlawful under the COM
mon law or under statutes other than the
Sherman law
Attorney General Wickersham, for the
government objected 10 this interprea-
tion and gave another TO the court. lie
said that decisions OF the court itself haa
demonstrated that II was brought about
by acts Of individuals i'm endeayorins 10
obtain for themselves all Of a given COM
modify. and that Il had become question
az intent.
Evidently bearing in mind suggestions
made earlier In the day by Chief justice
Nire that intent as a criterion OF No-
lstion OF the law was uncertain and mace
u impossible for the business man 10 kno"
whether he was violating the law unuI the
courts passed on his case, Mr.. Nickersham
argued that intent was no more uncer-
tain than fraud" which was punshed
by the law.
The arguments Of the day were made by
W g. Hornblower. representing the I'M
rerial Tobacco Company Of Great Brlt-
ain: & II. stroock. representing the United
Cigar Stores Company; Mr. Parker Tor the
American roDacco Company. ana NJ
vickersbam Mr.. Wickersham Will have
few minutes tomorrow To conciude
Thereafter arguments in tho standard Oh
dissolution suit will be taken up
I'm his address today, Mr Wickersham
devoted much Of his time 10 eholts 10
show that the tobacco organization had
been built up with an intent TO restrain
trade and 10 monopolize the business.
lie ridiculed the testimony Of the Off
Gals Of the company wherein they nam
tanned that they never had any idea OF re-
,training trade. and brought mis- argument
20 n climax with the exclamation:
with solemn yisage and pluus mein,
they would sugar the devil himself!
He characterized the statements that the
company had grown up as an orderly
legal and natural economic growth as
synonymous with a sweet placid dream
IKE growth
Court in Coloouy with Counsel
Mr.. Hornblower addressed the court first
The government made the British company
g. defendant because IT had entered into a
contract with the American Tobacco Com
pany whereby the Imperial was to connne
Ts tobacco business TO Great Britain ana
the American to America.
Justice Lurton wanted 10 know II the
promise OF the American was a restraint
of American foreign commerce. Mi. Horn
blower replied that it was not. because the
American was not then sending is manu-
1actured goods 10 England.
Chief Justice White inquired If it was
likewise impossible for the American 10
export TO England.
Mr. HornbIower said it was. and based
his reply on testimony of the president OF
the American who said that il was impos-
OF differentlal duties.
Considering tho effect Of the Imper.als
promise in the contract, Justice Lurton lea
the attorney TO say that the effect Of the
promise Of the Imperial TO remain in Eng
land was a restraint or trade in America.
He contended, however, that the restraint
was reasonable one.
Justice Harlan then turned to a discus,
nr d.. & lou
Suppose that six men are engaged IN
manufacturing an article IN one state
said the justice Suppose one buys out the
other five that he may control prices in
that state and In others Is that within the
law?'
Nj Iornblower said he believed # was.
"Bu, that is a thousand miles from this
ease" he added
That is a question TO 5c argued re-
Piled Justice Harlan.
chief Justice White led the attorney to
say that intent" Of the parties entering
into a contract should he the criterion OF
violation ot the law
Then YOU say that the power 10 make
lawful contract depends upon the con-
olusiou Of The courts later as to what was
the intent of tho minds of the parties
ehltIlht mo lIe Contract ne dskcu.
Mr. HnrnJlower old not reply directly.
IL you seek intent" continued the chief
Jgstice. You are not limited 10 the four
walls of the contract. are you? You are to
look az the whole life of the parties?"
"Oh, no. Not that far said Mr. Horn
blower
The discussion was followed with great
interest
ID. r. Watson attorney for the Standard
OH Company violated the rules Of the
court hy standing mp in order to hear bet
L..