The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-30

stated above, that is, The disburSe-
ment of enormous amounts OF money
TO acquire plants which on being
purcha sed were not utilized, but were
immediately closed.
The chief Justice described the or
eanization OF the American Snuff
company at the end of an 'aggreS-
sive competition in the snuff bust
ness between the American Tobacco
company, with the force acquired
from the vantage ground resulting
from the dominancS Of Its expanded
organization" and Independents. As
a result he said. the American To-
bacco company came virtually to have
the dominant control as a manufact-
urer OF that product.
The organization of the Conley
Foil company. manufacturers OF tin
foil. an essential for packing tobacco
products. the American Cigar com
pany, MacAndrews & Forbes com
psnY. manufacturers OF licorice, an
essential incident TO the manufac-
ture Of tobacco, and the American
Stogie company was considered at
length.
Finally he came down to the u1er-
ger in 1904 of the old American To-
bacco company. the Continental To-
bsccc company and the Consolidated
Tobacco company into the American
Tobacco company. Through the meth
cd OF distribution OF the stock Of the
new company, the chief justice said
that J. 8. Duke. Thomas +. Ryan,
William c. Whitney and Anthony y.
Brady, Peter a. b. Widener and
Oliver II, Perine would still he able
TO continue the control in the new
company that they had exercised in
the old.
A few words were said concerning the
trade war between the big British
tobacco company, the Imperial. and
the American Tobacco company and
finally the organization by these two
companies OF the British American
Tobacco company to carry on to-
bacco business outside OF England and
the United States.
In taking up the construction aud
application OF the Sherman anti
trust law. Justice White said that II
the law was applicable TO the entire
situation presented in the tobacco
case and was adequate to afford re-
lief. ''it can only he because that
law Will be given a more conprehen-
sive application than has been af-
iiNed 10 il in any previous decision"
Questions not hitherto considered by
the court were included in the ease
at bar In this connection the chief
justice said;
Some New Questi ons.
Thus. even If the ownership OF
stock by the American Tobacco COM
pany in the accessory and subsidiary
companies and the ownership of stock
in any OF these companies among
themselves were held. as was de-
cided in the Standard Oil company
case, 10 be violation Of the act and
all relations resulting from such
stock ownership was therefore set
aside. the question would yet remain
whether the principal defendant the
American Tobacco company, and the
five accessory defendants, even when
dvcsted of their stock ownership in
other corporations. by virtue OF the
power which they continue to pos
Sess. even although thus stripped.
would amount to violation of both
the first and second sections OF the
act.
Again If it were held that the
corporations, the existence whereof
was due TO a combination between
such companies and other companies
was violation of the act, the ques
tion would remain whether such of
the companies as did not owe their
existence and power to combinations.
but whose power alone arose from the
exercise of the right TO acquire and
own property. would be amcnable to
the prohibitions OF the act. Yet, fur
ther:
Even if this proposition was held
In the affirmative. the question
would remain whether the principal
defendant. "the American Tobacco
company. when stripped of its stock
ownership. would be In and OF itself
within the prohibitions OF the act
although that company WAS organized
and took being before the antitrust
act was Passed.
''Still further. the question would
yet remain whether particular cor
porstions which. when bcreft OF the
power which they possessed AS re-
suIting from stock ownership. al
though they were not inherently pos
scssed OF a sufficient residuum OF
power 10 cause them to be In and Of
themselves either restraint Of trade
or a monopoliZatlon for an attempt
to monopolize, should nevertheless be
restrained because OF their intimate
connection and association with other
corporations found To be within the
prohibitions OF the act
Incompatible Construction.
The necessity for relief for so
mary aspects. the chief justice said,
had evidently led the government TO
resort to methods OF construction
whict were incompatible and at the
same time the defendants had not
been able 10 do much better with the
situation. The difficulties which
arose. according TO the chief justice,
grew out n. plain misconceptions
both of the letter and spirit OF the
antitrust act,
nc added thar the obscurity and
resulting uncertainty which had en-
shrouded the Sherman antitrust act