The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1911-06-02

business an avenue absolutely neces-
sary to effective competition.
The tobacco organization was charg-
ed with having a monopoly of the 10
cd with hiving a monopoly of the
licorice paste, required in. the manu-
facture of tobacco, the MacAndrews
G. FORBES Company organized by the
Continental. having no competitor. 1t
is said.
1t was also said that the defen-
dants had monopoly in the tin foil
business, the Conley Foil Company,
of which the American Tobacco Com
pany held majority of the stock.
producing Is per cent of the tin foil
manufactured in this country. Both
the licorice and. the foil monopolies
were said to have been obtained in
violation of the Sherman anti-trust
law.
Another phase of the litigation con-
cerned the foreign trade. The petit
ton charged that the American To-
bacco Company had entered into con-
tracts with the Imperial Tobacco Com
pany the so-called District Trust,"
whereby. the latter should limit its
it's activities to Great Britain except
as to the purchase of a certain
amount of leaf in America and the
former should limit it's business to
the United States. 1t was alleged
that the two trusts organized the
Britlsh-American Tobacco Company to
take over the export business of both
and divide the world between them.
These contracts were made in Great
Britain.
The Circuit Court found that there
existed and ristraint of commerce, but
said nothing about the charges OF
monopolizing. In its decree the court
dismissed the petition as TO the I'm
perial Company and the British
American Company, and from tn
feature of the decree the Govern
ment appealed to the SupremCe curt
1t dismissed the petition as to the
United Cigar Stores Company and
from this, too, the Government APP
pealed. ,<ss
| The Circuit Court decreed that the
American Tobacco Company, the Amer
lean Snuff Company. the American
igar Company. the American Stogie
Company and MacAndrews & Forbes
Company We're unlawful combinations
and restrained them from engaging
lin Interstate or foreign commerce.
From this, the defendants appealed to
the Supreme Court. So did the Gov
ernment. The Covenant objected
because the only Foil Company and
the individual defendants. headed by
James B. Duke We're not made par
ties to the conspiracy to restrain and
because all were not held to be at
tempting to monopolize.
The Circuit Court decreed that the
American Tobacco Company, the Amel
lean Snuff ompany the American Gig
ar Company. p. Lorrillard Company,
In. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
Blackwen's Durham Tobacco Com
pany and the Conley Foil Company
held shares in specified corporations
and enjolned them exquiring the plan
or business or voting the shares over
the Subsidiary" companies and en-
joined the subsidiary" companies frcI
permitting.
Both the defendants and the Gov
lernment appealed. The latter objected
principally because the Imperial To-
bacco Company, the British Ameri-
can Tobacco Company and the United
Cigar Stores Company Were not inclu-
ded among the Subsidiary" compa-
MES and because the holding COM
panies We're not prohibited from col
lecting dividends from the "subsi-
diary" companies.
The appeals We're argued before the
Supreme Court, first In January 1910
and the second time in january, 1911
Prominent attorneys appeared. For
the Government Attorney General
Wichersham and his special assist
ant. ]. c. McReynolds. addressed the
court. For the American Tobacco
Companies there appeared John q.
Johnson. of Philadelphia; DaI.ancey
Nicoll and Junius Parker. of Nav
York; while William B. Hornblower.
of New York argued for the Imperi-
al Tobacco Company. and Sol NJ.
Strock. OF New York. for the United
Cigar Stores Company.