The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-05-30

SlCSS ~ ICSui0lS AAlCASA0 anu AOA
eign commerce be preserved untram-
meled. To this end il was declared
congress had the power to strike AT
evils possibly outside of interstate
commerce. such as monopoly of man.
ufacture. if the direct and necessary
consequence thereof would be to null
lily rules for the regulation OF inter-
state and foreign commerce.
The government stated that the will
of congress in respect to the power
to regulate interstate and foreign
commrce is the supreme law. unless
shown to conflict with some proyis-
ion Of the Constitution. The gov
eminent asserted that congress had
the power to enforce observance of it.
So the conclusion was reached that If
a reasonable necessity" arises. con-
gress may strike down the statue.
"Mereidirect. incidental or remote
effect on commerce was not sufficient
the government held, but whatever.
as a natural and probable consequence
cious operation Of the lawful yill of
congress in reference thereto is near
enough"
1T only asserts explained the gov
eminent, power to debar those en-
gagged in production or manufacture
from acts of transactions the lirect
and necessary consequence of which
would be to nullify rules for the con-
duct of interstate commerce admitted
ly within the power of congress to pre-
scribe"
Counsel for Trust.
The American Tobacco company
was represented before the court by
Attorneys John G. johnson Of Phila-
delphia: Judge William j. Wallace,
w. w. Fuller, De Lancey Nicol and Ju-
MUS Parker, all of New York. They
also appeared for the defendant cor
porations in the first argument of the
dissolution suit year ago. William
NJ. Wins of New York also filed brief
in behalf of the trust.
The argument advanced by attor.
neys for the Tobacco Trust described
| the inaccurate and confused ideas on
the subject of monopoly as referred to
| in the Sherman antitrust law. In the
ment failed to distinguish by any cleal
line of cleavage, between large bust
nesses on the one hand, and monopo
lies on the other"
Attorneys for the defendants con
cluded their argument with this re
view of the situation:
| 1--WE believe that we have demon
strated that the intercorporate rela
tons of these defendants are not sucl
as to bring any of them within tn,
proper definition of holding com
pany.' or upon any of them condem
nation of having violated the Sher
man antitrust law by the imprope
elimination of incentive to engage ii
interstate trade. Nothing is left TO
the government, logically, but to dis
pute this whole conception of the law
and to rely on the doctrine announce,
by Circuit Judge Lacombe and now re
pudiated, illogically by the govern
ment."
1 The attorneys declared that the To
=
bacco Trust was not a monopoly in re
straint of trade, in view of former de
cisions of the court. THE facts ii
the case" it was declared. Shove,
that the Tobacco Trust was operating
along legitimate lines, and was actu
ally engaged in competition, not onl
among themselves, but with other cor
Germs.
1t was also pointed out that the gov
eminent did not define with accurac
the scope of the word monopoly, a
lapplied to manufacturing concerns
and further that there was no proof Il
the present case convicting the Am
erican Tobacco company of grabbin
the entire tobacco trade of the Unite,
States.