Weekly journal-miner., 1911-05-31


 petition and that they aeeomplishe,
 that purpose. Each step was attack
 ed as part of an unlawful plan
 whose development and progress wa
 advanced, it was charged, by duress
 oppression, and unfair method. in
 tended to drive out and keep ou
 competitors and secure monOpolies
 The defendants claimed that notn ing was to be found in the organiza ! tion of these corporations, but tn, orderly, natural and legitimate de velopment of a great business. They said the acquisitions had been prop CT and that no intent to restrain trade or mOnOpOhze trade had prompted the creation of corpora. tions.
 In addition, it was charged that the American Tobacco Company ae- quired control of the United Cigar Stores Company, which conducts re- tail stores in large cities, and there by was seeking dominion in the re- tall business, an avenue absolutely necessary to effective competition.
 The tobacco organization was charged with having a monopoly of the ieoriee paste; required in the manufacture of tobacco, the Mae Andrews & Forbes Company, organ ized by the Continental having no competitor, it was said.
 It was also said that the defend ants had a monopoly in the tin foil business, the Conley Foil Company, of which the American Tobacco Com pany held majority of the stock, producing 75 per cent of the tin foil manufactured in this country. Both the lieOriee and the foil mono pOlies were said to have been ob- tained in violation of the Sherman antitrust law.
 Another phase of the litigation concerned the foreign trade. The petition charged that the American Tobacco Company had entered into contracts with the Imperial Tobacco Company, the so-ealled ''British Trust. whereby the latter should limit its activities to Great Britain except as to the purchase of eer- tain amount of leaf in America and the former should limit its business of the United States. It was alleg- the British-Ameriean Tobacco Con- pany to take over the export busi- ness of both and divide the world between them. These contracts were made in Great Britain.
 The circuit Court found that there existed a restraint of commerce, but said nothing about the charges of mOnopolizing. In its decree, the court dismissed the petition as to the Imperial Company and the Brit Company and from this feature of the decree the government appealed to the Supreme Court. It dismissed the petition as to the Unit ed Cigar Stores Company, and from this, too, the government appealed.
 The Circuit Court deereed that the American Tobacco Company, the American Snuff Company, the Amer jean Cigar Company, the American StOgie Company and MaeAndrews & Forbes Company were unlawful com and restrained them from engaging in the interstate or foreign commerce. From this, the defend | ants appealed to the Supreme Court. ! So did the government. The govern ! ment objected because the Conley i Foil Company and the individual de fendants, headed by James B. Duke, were not made parties to the con- 'piracy to restrain and because all were not neld to be attempting to  The circuit court deereed that the American Tobacco Company, the American Snuff Company, the Amer can Cigar Company, P. LOrillard Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Blaekwell's Durham To- 'aeeO Company and the COnley Foil company held shares in specified cor 'Orations and enjoined them from ac- uiring the plants or business or Oting the shares of and from exer- , ising control over the subsidiary" {; ompanies, and enjOined the "subsid- I lry" companies from permitting con- ! rol. Both the defendants and the ! Overnment appealed. The latter ob- q eeted principally because the I'm S erial Tobacco Company, the British T .meriean Tobacco Company and the |