Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-05-30

In the year, 1899 and thereafter.
either the American or Continental
Cos, for cash or stock, at an aggre-
gate cost of S50,000000 bought and
closed up some 30 competing corpor-
ations and partnerships heretofore
lengaged in interstate and foreign COM
merce as manufacturers, sellers and
distributors of tobacco and related
commodities the interested parties
covenants not to engage in the bust
ness. Likewise the two corporations
acquired for cash. by issuing stock. and
iotherwiSe, control of many competing
corporations now going concerns, with
plants in various states, Cuba and
Porto Rico. who manufactured. bought.
sold and distributed tobacco products
or related articles throughout the
/ United States and foreign countries
ard took from the parties in interest
covenants not to again engage in the
tobacco business.
Not only did the American and Con-
tinental Tobacco Cos. continue to ac-
lquire other tobacco companies. but the
chief justice referred to the other com
panies as acquiring still more com
panies.
1T is of the utmost Importance. "
said the chief justice. Ito observe that
the acquisition made by the subsidiary
corporations in some cases likewise
show the remarkable fact stated
above. that is. the disbursement of
enormous amounts of money to ae-
quire plants which on being purchased
were not utilized. but were immediate
ly closed"
/ The chief justice described the or
lganization of the American Snuff Co,
at the end of an aggressive competi-
ton in the snuff business between the
! American Tobacco Co. with the force
acquired from the vantage ground re-
sultins from the dominancy of it's ex-
banded Organization" and independ-
ents. As a result. he said, the Ameri-
can Tobacco Co. came virtually to
have the dominant control as manu-
facturer of that product
The organization of the foil COM
| pany. manufacturers of tin foil. an es-
scntal for packing tobacco products
the American Cigar Co. MacAndrews
| 81 Forbes Co. manufacturers of lico-
rice. another essential ingredient in
| l.t tHSittti TUT VI tihe'NN@t 'N'ic -
/ American Stogie Co. was considered at
length.
Finally he came down to the merger
in 1904 of the old American Tobacco
Co, the Continental Tobacco Co and
the Consolidated Tobacco Co. into the
new American Tobacco Co. Through
the method of distribution of the stock
of the new company. the chief justice
said that J. b. Duke, Thomas F.~Ryan,
| William c. whitney. Anthony y.
Bradley. Peter a. b. Widener and OH
| yer II. Payne were able to continue the
control in the new company that they
had exercised in the old.
| A few words were said concerning
the trade war between the big British
| tobacco COMPANY. the Imperial and
the American Tobacco Co, and final-
" the organization by these two COM
| NAMES of the British-Ameriean 1oeae-
| co Co. to carry on tobacco business
outside of England and the United
States.
] In taking up the construction ana aP-
| nlication of the Sherman antl-trust
/ law Chief Justice White SAID tllat Il
| the law was applicable to the e''iie
situation presented in the tobacco cas-
and was adequate to afford reilei. II
| con only be because that law VIII pe
| GIVEN more comprehensive appiiea-
lin than has been affixed to II III any
previous decision -,
- ,,,.s.,.io,,s not hitherto considered by
aa,,,.t were included in the case q.
bar. In this connection the ei'lei '
| tice said: .,,i,, of
| "Thus, even if the owhersiip
etock by the American lopdeo'
| In the accessory and subsidiary
nies and the ownership OF s'ooN'
anv of these companies among 'noi
selves were held, as was aeeioe
|. ha standard Oil case. to be VIVA
10, of the act, and all relations
| e,,,.in, from such stock oWhet9hip
-, therefore set aside. the questioii
! ,,-o,ia vet remain whether the pii'
| - s6fopdant the American Tobacco
,ha five accessory defendants
- hen aiyested of their stoeh
'...,,;n in other corporations oy
,,irturo of the power which they wooio
continue to possess even aithousn .nos
strinped. would amount TO ioia'ior
~ Nth the first and second secuohs
Vi tiit CO.
again. If it were held that the GO,
norations, the existence whereof wac
due to a combination between SUI
compauies and other companies Mas
a violation of the act the quest,pn
would remain whether such OF INC
COMPANIES as did not owe theii
istence and power to combination ou'
whose power alone arose from tne eA
ercise of the right to acquire ana own
nroperty would be amenaele W eno
nrohibitions of the act Yet iurthel,
Even If this proposition was heio III
the affirmative. the question would re-
main whether the principal Defendant
the American Tobacco Co, when strip
ned of the stock ownership wound De
In and of itself within the prohibition
Of the act although that company was
oreanized and took being before ehe
ANTITRUST act was passed
still further. the question would
vet remain whether particular corpor-
atoms which. when bereft of the pow
or which they possessed as resulting
from stock ownership, although they