The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1911-01-07
] Obj GEO
CASE is RD
History Of the Combination
and Its Course in Court
Quite Interesting

Quite Interesting.
l SiAisEHHseno,N. b. G., Jan. 7.Ar-
gpments were made again this week
before the United states supreme
court in the Tobacco trust, case.
The suit Under the Sherman and.
trust law to dissolve the so-caiied
1 Tobacco trust was instituted In 1907
in the circuit court Of the United
Z States for the southern district 81
New York. The proceedings were
/ brought by the Department Of Justice
against more than sixty corporations
and a number OF individual defendants
headed by James B. Duke.
Long Time Organizing.
The process Of organization 81 the
combination alleged to be unlawful
spread over many years. It began III
January, 1890. Then the irst Ameris
can Tobacco Company was lncorpor-
ated for the purpose, It IS alleged, Of
taking over the business Of ave indie
pendent cigarette plants.
\ In 1885, the Continental Tobacco
company was Incorporated for the al
legged purpose OF taking over the
plug tobacco business OF the american
Tobacco Company and the business OF
i've other plug tobacco concerns.
In 1900 the American Snuf Com
pany was incorporated for the alleged
purpose OF taking over the sna6 bnss
mess Of the, American Tobacco Com
Fpany and of two or three indepen-
Edent snuff manufacturers. 90
| Cigar Company In 1t.
In 1901. the American Cigar Com
lpsny was Incorporated for the alleged
purpose of taking over the cigar bus
mess of the, American Tobacco Com
.pany and an independent manufaetnr-
er of cigars.
In the same year, the Consolidated
Tobacco Company was Incorporated
for the alleged purpose of taking over
as holding company In exchange for
its bonds substantially all of the stock
OF the American Tobacco Company
and the Continental Tobacco Com
1pany. nj
Stogle Company Also.
In 1903. the American Stogie Com
pany was incorporated for the. alleged
purpose of taking over the stOgie bus
mess of the American Cigar Company,
the American Tobacco Company and
the Continental Tobacco Company.
In 1904. the American Tobacco
Company, the Continental Tobaec6
Company. and the Consolidated To-
bacco Company were merged into the
present American. Tobacco Company
Enters Into Contract,
IT is alleged that in addition to this
orgGn.za ton, the American compan-
les in 1902 entered into a contract
with a British company. the Imperial
Tubacco Company. whereby the Amer
lean companies were limited in their
business to America and the British to
Great Britain. except that the lattef
could buy leaf tobacco in the United
states. 1t was alleged that the Brit
ish-American Tobacco Company was
organized to take over the export
business of both the British and the
American companies.
Greatest Producers.
Testimony was presented to prove
that the defendants produced 10 per
cent OF the smoking tobacco made in
this country: az per cent Of the ciga-
rettes; 81 per cent of the plug and
twist tobacco. 81 per cent of the fine
cut tobacco; SO per cent Of the little
cigars; sc per cent of the snuff; 95 per
cent of the licorice paste: rs per cent
Of the tin foil and most OF the tobac-
60 extracts, boxes and containers.
Three of the four judges on the cir
cult bench united in a decree. This
decree dismissed the petition as to the
Imperial Company and the British
! American Company, and the United
Cigar Stores Company, which was
claimed to be the retail branch Of the
organization. This action formed one
of the grounds for appeal 10y the gov
eminent to the supreme court.
! Unlawful Combination.
The decree adJudged the other de-
PENDANTS to be parties to an unlaw-
!Iul combination, but said nothing
about the monopolizing charges. This
| failure furnished another ground for
appeal by the government. The
American Tobacco Company. the
American snuft Company. the Ameri-
can Cigar Company, P. Lorillard Com
pany. r. ]. Reynolds Tobacco Com
,pany. BIackwelrs Durham Tobacco
Company and the Conley Foil Com.
pany were adjudged to hold shares in
4 number OF specified corporations
and enjoined them from acquiring the
plants or business or voting the shares
of and from exercising control over
these subsidiary companies. The gov
eminent was dissatisfied because the
holding companies were not enjoIned
from collecting dividends from the
subsidiary companies.
The defendants appealed to the SUI
! preme court because the petition OF