New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-05-30
10 have inspired and dominated the COM
blnation from the beginning"
Where tho Lower Court Erred.

10 have inspired and dominated the COM
blnation from the beginning"
Where tho Lower Court Erred.
At the outset he said the court had de-
cided that the lower court clearly erred In
Diminishing the individual defendants-the
United Cigar Stores Company. the I'M
perial Tobacco Company. the British
American Tobacco Company and their sub
sidiary corporations.
Hesita ting 10 pronounce the decree, the
court said that the case involved difficulties
greater than had been presented by any
Sherman antitrust case which had been
before 1t. one reason why 1t was so diff
hcult to find a remedy was because mere
decree forbidding stock ownership by one
part Of the combination In another part
would afford no adequate measure OF
relief. since different ingredients OF the
combination would remain unaffected, and
by the very nature and character OF their
organization would be able TO continue the
wrongful situation.
Another reason was because the meth
DDS of apparent ownership by which the
wrongful intent was. in part. carried out
purpose Of accomplishing the wrong con-
templated were Of such a character that
il was probably impossible to restore the
prior lawful conditions.
third reason was that the methods de-
vised by which the various essential ele-
ments to the successful operation OF the
tobacco business for any particular aspect
have been 60 separated under various sue-
ordinate combinat ions. Yet so unified by way
Of the control worked out by the scheme
here condemned and are so involves
that any specific form Of relief which We
might now order in substance and effect
might operate really 10 injure the public
and It may be TO perpetuats a wrong
No Permanent Injunction or Receiver
Two general remedies. Chief Justice
White said. might be resorted TO. The
first OF these he described as the allowance
of a permanent injunction restraining the
combination from continuing to engage In
interstate commerce until tre illegal situa-
ton should be cured. The second he had
in mind vas the appointment Of a receiver
He said that the court did not think 1t
could nov" direct the immediate applica-
ton or either OF tnese rcrleuieS.
I'VE so consider as to the first" he add
Cd because in view Of the extent Of the
combination. the vast field which it covers
the all-embracing character Of its activi
ties concerning tobacco and its products
to at once stay the movement in interstate
, commerce of the products which the com
bination or its cooperating forces produce
or control might infict infinite injury upon
the public by leading 20 a stoppage of sup
ply and a great enhancement OF prices
The second. because the extensive power
which would result from At once resortinG
Il a receivership might not only do griev-
Gus injury 10 the public. but also cause
widespread and perhaps irreparable loss to
many innocent people"
At last he said that the decree should be
as follows:
First-That the combination in and OF
itself. as well as each and all OF the ele-
monts composing II, whether corporate or
individuals, whether considered collectively
or separately be decreed TO be In restraint
of trade and an attempt TO monopolize and
a monopolization within the first and sec
ond sections OF the antitrust law.
Second-That the court below, in or
der to give effective force to our decree
in this regard. be directed to hear the
parties, by evidence or otherwise, as il
may be deemed proper, for the purpose
Of ascertsinine and determining upon
some plan or method of dissolvins the
combination and Of recreating cut Of the
elements now composing il a new con-
dition which shall be honestly in har-
mony with and not repusnant to the law,
Third-That for the accomplishment OF
these purposes. taking In view the din
Guilty Of the situation. period Of SIX
months is allowed from the receipt OF our
mandate. with leave. however. III the event.
in the judgment of the court below. the