The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-01-10
Attorney Says Combine Has
Not Raised Prices, Although
Leaf Is Dearer.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
QUIZ GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
Where to Draw Line in Re-
straint of Trade Debated
at Length.

lC-Ni JAN Wv mere " olttW
the line between legal and illegal re-
straint OF interstate commerce was the
burden OF questions today In the re-
argument before the federal supreme
court on the dissolution suit against the
American Tobacco corporation
Before they could be answered another
fusillade of questions concerning what the
Sherman antitrust law means by mo
popolizing' OF trade had opened,
"Generalitics are very good" said Jus
tice Day to j. C. McReynoids, attorney
for the United States, "but 1t seems to
me that The government ought to have
an explanation now of what the law
means by 'monopolIzng' I"
Mr.. McReynods had just resumed his
argument when Justice Holmes asked:
do you think that to buy out man
and make covenant with him that he
will not engage In the same business in
certain time Is unlawful2'
Mr.. McReynolds said that the supreme
court had decided that control Of major
portion of a business was sufficient for
the courts to act. and that the business
Of the tobacco corporation came within
the line OF decisions laying down that
rule.
Justices Quiz Lawyer.
Justice McKenna suggested that the
court in arriving at decision must have
a basis on which to work. He wanted to
know on what basis the government
would have IL advance. The attorney re-
peated the decisions OF the court an
nounced were sufficient TO decide the
present case.
''If ! may say So, ! belieeye." continue
Make efggi1i1S ~IeaI n,staie II W IL ATTEMPTS % to
decide In this case all that the Sherman
anti-trust law means. There is a bor-
derland tierkrad out yond9er into which 1t is not
Chief Justice White suggested that
where there was borderland there was
a border.
justice. What is your theory OF the
law, ask you, ana you respond that we
have decided this case In your favor"
w5ned MT his tSeor Sae nf the
theory of the court. he would give II. 1t
was that the law intended to prevent in
reference with the free flow Of competi;;
that any combination that was sufficient
TO interfere was within the Sherman
antitrust law. He explained that he
had In mind material and direct OBJ
struction OF commerce.
do you maintain that II takes ST per
cent Of r trade to affect material OBJ
struction7" inquired Justice Day
Your honors have held that 81 per
cent was sufficient to come within the
law" was the response. IF combina-
ton OF less is upheld by this court to be
sufficient. that is better"
Draws Legal Distinction.
Justice Lurton wanted to know IL he
considered that unreasonable" restraint
WAS meant by the statute. Mr.. McRey:
nolds replied that he did not; that ma
terla and direct restraint rather than
unreasonable was meant.
In reply to the chief Justice, Mr. Nc
Reynolds said he considered the law dis
tngushed between restraint OF trade by
an individual with millions In his pockets
and restraint by combination of indi-
Viduals using corporate form.
Mr.. McReynolds concluded by stating
that III you want size as basis, we
have 1t here If you want intent. we
have intent TO restrnin whatever YOU
want, we have The essential elements In
this case
After Mr., McReynolds concluded, De-
lancey Nicoll opened for the defendant
He said he would try TO show that the
dark and somber colors in which Mr. Nc
Reynolds had painted the defendants were
not true.
No increase in prices to the consumer
had occurred since the organization of
the corporation. he said. but prices of
leaf tobacco had nearly doubled, The
lower court had announced he added.
that the record was remarkably free from
Instances OF coercion and oppression,