The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-05-29

whose development and progress was
! advanced, 1T was charged, by duress,
oppression and unfair methods in
tended to drive out and keep out
competitors and secure monopolies.
The defendants claimed that moth
ing was to be found in the organiza-
tion Of these corporations but the
orderly natural and legitimate devel-
opment of a great business. They said
the acquisitions had been proper and
that no intent to restraint trade or mo-
nopolize trade had prompted the Gre
alton of corporations.
In addition 1t was charged that the
American Tobacco Co. acquired con-
troll Of the United Cigar stores Co.,
which conducts retail stores in large
cities, and thereby was seeking to
dominion in the retail business, an
avenue absolutely necessary to eff
fective competition.
The tobacco organization was charg-
ed with having a monopoly OF the
licorice paste, required in the manu-
facture of tobacco, the McAndrews &
Forbes Co., organized by the Cont
mental having no competitors, ii was
said.
1t was also said that the defend
ants had monopoly in the tin foil
business. the Conley Foil Co. of which
the American Tobacco Co. held a ma
iority Of stock. producing rs 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
antitrust law.
Another phase OF the litigation con-
cerned the foreign trade. The petition
charged that the American Tobacco
Co. had entered into contracts with
the Imperial Tobacco Co, the social ID
British trust" whereby the latter
should limit its activities to Great
Britain except as to the purchase of a
certain amount of leaf in America and
the former should limit its business of
the United States. 1t was alleged that
the two trust" organized the Britain
American Tobacco Co, to take over
the business OF both and divide the
world between them. These con-
tracts were made in Great Britain.
The circuit court found that there
existed restraint of commerce, but
said nothing about the charges Of
monopolizing. In It's decree, the court
dismissed the petition as to the I'm
periaf Co. and the British American
Co, and from this feature OF the de-
cree the government appealed to the
supreme court. 1t dismissed the pc
tition as to the United Cigar
Stores Co., and from this, too, the
government appealed.
The circuit court decreed that the
American Tobacco Co., the American
Snuff Co., the American Cigar Co., the
American Stogie Co. and McAndrews
e. Forbes Co. were unlawful c0mbi-
nations and restrained them from en-
gaging in interstate or foreign COM
merce. From this. the defendant ap-
pealed to the supreme court So did
the government The government OBJ
jected because the Conley Foil Co. and
the Individual defendants, headed by
James b. Duke, were not made parties
70 the conspiracy to restrain and be-
cause all were not held to be at
tempting to monopolize.
The circuit court decreed that the
American Tobacco Co., the American
Snuff Co, the American Cigar Co,
P. Lorillard Co., r. ]. Reynolds To-
bacco Co, BlackweIl's Durham To-
bacco co. and the Conely Foil Co.
held shares in specified corporations
and enjoined them from acquiring
the plants or business or voting the
shares OF and from exercising con-
troll over the subsidiary companies,
and enjoined the subsidiary companies
from permitting control. Both the de-
PENDANTS and the government appealed
The latter objected principally be-
cause the Imperial Tobacco Co. the
British American Tobacco CO. and the
United Cigars Stores Co. were not in
cluded among the subsidiary companies
and because the holding companies
were not prohibited from collecting
dividents from the subsidiary com
panies.
The appeals were argued before the
supreme court first In January 1910,
and the second time In january 1911.
Prominent attorneys appeared For
the government Attorney General
Wickersham and his special assistant.
u. C. McReynolds addressed the court
For the American Tobacco Cos there
appeared John @. Johnson, OF phila-
delphia; Delaney NicoiI and Junius
Parker of New York, while William
ID. Hornblower. OF New York, argued
for the Imperial Tobacco Co. and Sol
Nd. Stroock, of New York, Tor the
wpa4 49,. F4x. -.