New-York tribune., 1911-01-10
TOBACCO Case REARGUED
Justices Of the Supreme Court
Seek information.
RAPID FIRE or QUESTIONS
McReynolds Asked to Explain
Meaning of Monopolizing--
Nicoll for Defendants.

Washington. Jan. 9.--Whers to draw the
Enc between legal and illegal restraint Of
interstate conmerce was the burden Of
rapid fire OF questions to-day in the re-
argument before the Supreme Court Of the
United States Of the dissolution suit
sesiust the American Tobacco corpora
lions Before they could be answered an
other fusillade ot questions concerning
what tho sherman antitrust law meant
By the "monopolizinC' Of trade had opened
"Genersllties are very good said justice
Day TO J. G.. McReynolds, one Of the al
1orneys for the United states. but 1t seems
90 me that the government ought 20 have
m exclamation now Of what the law means
by fnonopolzing'
Mr.. McReynoIds had Just resumed his
argument when Justice Holmes asked:
DO vou think that 70 buy out man
end make a GOV enapt with him that he VIII
not engage In fhe same bushes IN certain
tro is unlawful?
Nrr NcReynoids said that The Supreme
Court had decided that control Of a major
part Of business was sufficient for the
courts 10 act and that the business Of the
tobscco corporation came within the lire
a. decisions laying down that rule
Justice McEeun1 suggested that the
court IN arriving st a decision must have
p basis on which 70 work. lie wanted 10
yrsU on what basis the government would
have = advance,
The stterney repeated that the decisions
of me court announced we're sufficient 70
decide the present case.
IL may say so, I believe" continued
rly MeReynolds, that the court will make
= great mistake II II attempts 70 decide IN
this ease all that the Sherman antitrust
law means Thero 3 a borderland out
Wonder into which it is not necessary TO
SCI
chief Justice White suggested that where
,Here was a bordsrIsud there was bor-
der
Where is it7" Inquired the Chief Justice
what is sour theory Of the law | ask
y5r. and son respond that yonr theory
3 tAat we have decided this case in your
foror"
1Jr. McPeynods said u The court wanted
lis theory, notwithstanding the theory OF
the court he would give it It was that
the law Intended 70 prevent Interference
with the free flow of competition IN com
,errs betWeen the states, and that any
combination that was sufficient to inter
sers with the free flow was within the
Sherman antitrust Law. lie explained that
he rad IN mind q material and direct OBJ
sirJcuon Of commerce.
DO YOU nsiutsin tNat o. takes 81 per
cent Of a trade 20 effect material op'
HtrT ctI0n2" inquired Justice Day
nYcur lonors have held that 81 per cent
Nas sufficient 10 come within the law
.sS the response. 'If a combination Of
less IS hold by this court 10 be sufficient
that f. better. I Go not believe that OBJ
structou by two little fellows is sufi-
Gent
Justice Lurton wanted 70 know n he con-
fdered that "unreaseRahle" restraint was
meant by the statute. Mr. McReynoi2s
replied that he did nOt-that material and
direct" restraint, rather than 'unreasoaa-
t," was meant.
Tn reply to the Chief Justice. Mr.. Nc
Ieynolds said that he considered the law
distinguished between restraint oE trade By
en Individual with millions in his pockets
aud restraint by a combination Of indlvid-
usIs using an incorporate form.
Mr.. McReynolds closed by stating that
~ YOU want size as . basis we have il
lere. if you want intent, we have intent to
restrain: whatever you want, We have the
essential elements IN this case
Delaney NicoI opened the argument
he said he would try 70 snow that the dark
end sombre coiors in which Mr. Mercy
rolds had painted the defendants were not
rrgs 70 life. no increase IN prices TO the
consumer had occurred since the orsaniza-
sfon Of the corporations, he said, but prices
nj leaf tobacco had nearly doubled. The
i,.wEr court had announced, he adde1 tfat
ius record was remarkably free from IN
ttaucss Of coercion and oppression.
The arguments will be continued to-mor-
tcw sui the next dsy.