Evening star., 1911-05-28

want to write the tobacco decision Also
In which event, 1t would not be surpris-
Ing II such decision were. not the last
one before adjournment tomorrow. but
the first one on reassembling in October
There has certainly been considerable
misunderstanding Of the decision in the
oil case, not only on the part OF the un-
thinking public. but also by prominent
men. including national legislators. The
Chief Justice may want to make his
meaning so clear that 1t will be incapable
OF being misunderstood, and may take
all summer to do 1t. There are. to be
the tobacco case to be studied-about
one-sixth as many as in the OIL case.
This Is going from one extreme to the
other. and there Is possibility-a re-
will dismiss the tobacco case without
prejudice to the government and call for
more evidence for use In applying the
"rule Of reason" in deciding whether or
not the tobacco combination is directly
restraining interstate trade.
The refusal by the Supreme Court to
affirm the decree Of the United States
Circuit Court Of New York city dissolv-
ing the tobacco combination would have
a moro important bearing on the inter-
ests of the country now than before the
decision May Is In the oil case. Because.
such q victory for the defendant tobacco
combination would be explained by the
public on the ground that the Supreme
Court meant that q combination had
right to restrain trade reasonably.
In the tobacco case the United States
circuit court In New York city went
through the record with dne-tooth
comb and found the tobacco combination
guilty of being monopoly In restraint OF
trade. Judge Coke Of that court said
that the tobacco trust consists OF over
sixty corporations that control the to-
bacco business In all its branches. and
that there was no chance for any one
with q moderate-sized capital to engage
in business against the opposition Of the
combination.
as the American Tobacco Company had
been formed by q merger of the original
company with the Continental Tobacco
Company and the Consolidated Tobacco
Company. competition had been eliminat-
ed, and that the trust had power to re-
strain trade and was therefore guilty OF
violating the Sherman law.
Judge Noyes called attention to the
almost perfect control the tobacco trust
has over all tobacco products, and he
added that the tobacco trust is convicted
out of its own mouth when it says in its
brief that 1t has brought about 1.-The con-
solidation of interests more or less sharp
ly competitive through the formation of
a corporation and the transfer to 1t of
the respective properties and business OF
such competitors"
Judge Ward wanted to let the tobacco
combination off, He dissented because he
the defendant to restrain trade. and he
also thought that interstate commerce
was not sufficiently involved.
This is a good place to recall just what
the United States circuit court in New
York. city decreed against the tobacco
trust in December. 1908. The following is
the gist of that courts decree:
/. The court finds that the defendants
Except the Imperial Tobacco Company.
the United Cigar Stores Company and the
r. p. Richardson, Jr.. Company are par
ties to combinations in restraint OF inter-
state and foreign trade in leaf tobacco,
products manufactured therefrom and arr
ticles in connection Herewith, in viola
tion OF the Sherman law.
2. Wherefore. said defendants are en-
Joined from doing anything in further
ance Of the objects OF the combination
and from continuing as parties thereto.
3. The American Tobacco Company,
American Snuff Company. American CT
gar Company. American Stogie Company
and Mac Andrews & Forbes Company are,
each itss11, combination contrary TO
the Sherman law.
4. Wherefore. these companies are en-