Evening star., 1911-05-30

reaffirm."
When it came to an application Of the
law as laid down in the Standard OIL
case to the tobacco case all the diff
culties suggested by the mere form in
which the assailed transactions were
clothed became Of no moment. This was
because. he said, the Standard Oil case
held that every conceivable act which
could possibly come within the spirit or
purpose Of the prohibition of the law
without regard to the garb in which such
acts were clothed was embraced In the
law.
Question Of ulegality.
The court next took up the problem
of determining whether the acts. con-
were Of such "an unusual and wrongful
prohibitions of the law On this point
the Chief Justice said:
The history of the combina ton is so
replete with the doing Of acts which 1T
was the obvious purpose of the statute
to forbid, so demonstrative OF the exist
ence from the beginning of purpose to
acquire dominion and control of the to-
bacco trade. not by the mere exertion of
the ordinary right to contract and to
trade. but by methods devised in order
to monopolize the trade by driving COM
petitOrs out of business, which were ruth
that to work upon the fears or play upon
the cupidity of competitors wouh make
success possible.
I'VE say these conclusions are inevi-
table, not because Of the vast amount Of
property aggregated by the combination.
not because alone of the many corpora
tions which the proof shows were united
by resort to one device or another.
Again, not alone because of the do
minion and control of the tobacco COM
pany trade which actually exists, but be-
cause we think the conclusion Of wrong
full purpose and illegal combination fs
overwhelmingly established by the fol-
lowing considerations:
"(a)-By the fact that the very first
organization or combination was impelled
by previously existing fierce trade war.
evidently inspired by one or more Of the
minds which brought about and became
parties to that combination.
Effort to Monopolize.
'(b) Because, Immediately after that
and the increase Of capital
which followed. the acts which ensued
justify the inference that the intention
existed to use the power of the COM
bination as vantage ground to further
monopolize the trade in tobacco by
means of trade conflicts designed to
in1ure others, either by driving COM
petitors out OF the business or COM
a
|combination-a purpose whose execution
was illustrated by the plug war which
ensued and it's results, by the snun
war which followed and its results and
by the conflict which Immediately fol-
lowed the entry Of the combination In
England and the division Of the worlds
business by the two foreign contracts
which ensued.
ton which is exhibited OF a conscious
wrongdoing by the form in which the
various transactions were embodied
from the beginning. ever changing. but
ever In substance the same. Now the
organization of a new company. now
the control exerted by the taking OF
stock in one or another or in several.
50 as to obscure the result actually at
tanned. none the less form their
strain others or monopolize and retain
power in the hands Of the few. who,
1t would seem. from the beginning con
templated the mastery OF the trade
which practically followed.
I'D BY the gradual absorption OF con-
troll over all the elements essential to the
successful manufacture OF tobacco prod
ucts and placing such control In the
hands Of seemingly independent corpora
tions serving as perpetual barriers to the
entry Of others into the tobacco trade
Many Plants Closed Up.
"(e) BY persistent expenditure Of mill
lions upon millions OF dollars in buying out
plants. not for the purpose Of utilizing
them, but in order to close them UP and
render them useless for the purposes Of
trade.
20 BY the constantly recurring stipu-
lations. whose legality. isolatedly viewed.
was not considered, by which numbers
of persons. whether manufacturers. stock
holders or employees, were required to
bind themselves-generally for long speri-
ods-not to compete in the future.
Indeed. when the results Of the un-
disputed proof which we have stated are
fully apprehended. and the wrongful acts
which they exhibit are considered, there
comes inevitably to mind the conviction
that 1t was the danger which It was
deemed would arise to individual liberty
and the public well being from acts like
those which this record exhibits which
led the legislative mind to conceive and
to enact the antitrust act, considerations
which also serve to so clearly demonstrate
that the combination here assailed is
within the law as to leave no doubt that
1t is our plain duty to apply its prohibi-
TONS
Lastly, the Chief Justice took up a con-
sideration Of the remedy to be applied
With the combination as a whole, with
all its cooperating and associated parts
violating both the first section Of the
Sherman law in regard to restraint of
trade and the second section in reference
" dltCnplS W uOuOpOllZc OF q UOuOpO-
lizatfon. the Chief Justice declared that
the relief must be wider than that award
ed by the lower court. The circuit court,
he said, had merely decided that certain
Of the corporate defendants constituted
combinations in violation OF the first sec
ton Of the act of the fact that they
were formed by the union Of previously
competing concerns.
Question of Relief.
In arriving at the proper relief the
court said that it had been guided by
three dominant influences. The first Of
these was described as 1.-The duty Of CIV
ing complete and ef1icacious effect to the
prohibition of the statute The second
was described as the duty Of accom-
plishing this result with as little injury
as possible to the general public
The third was spoken of as "a proper
regard for the vast interests Of private
property which may have become vested
IN many persons as result OF the ac-
QUESTION. either by way Of stock owner
ship or otherwise, OF interests In the
/ stock or securities of the combination
without any guilty knowledge or intent
in any way to become actors or partici-
pants in the wrongs which we find to
have inspired and dominated the COM
bination from the beginning
At the outset he said. the court had