The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-01-10
Some PointExists here
1t Becomes Contrary
to Law.
A RAPID FIRE
OF QUESTIONS
In Re-Argument of Dissolution
Suit Against Tobacco Corpora
ton Justices Seek Basis
On Which Government
Would Have Case
Advance.

Washington, January a.--where to
gal restraint OF interstate commerce
was the burden of rapid fire of ques-
lions to-day in the reargument befora
the Supreme Court Of the United States
of the dissolution suit against thu
American Tobacco Corporation. Be
fore they could be answered another
fusiliado of questions concerning what
the Sherman antitrust law meant by
the "monopolizing" of trade had
opened
"Generalities are very good" said
Justice Day to j. C. McReynolds, one
OF the attorneys for the United states,
but II SONS to me that the govern
ment ought to have an explanation
now of what the law means b. "monop-8
olizing.'"
Mr.. McReynolds had Just resumed
his argument when Justice Holmes
asked:
do you think that to buy out man
and mako covenant with him that
he will not engage In the same busi-
ness In certain time IS unlawful ~
Mr.. Mckeynolds said that the Sill.
preme Court had decided that control
of major part of business was suf1i-S
Client for the courts to act and that
the business OF tho tobacco corpora
tion came within the line OF decisions
laying down that rule.
Wants Working Bnsis.
Justice McKenna suGg ested that the
court, In arriving at decision. must
have a basis on which to work. lie
wanted to know on what basis tho
government wonld have 1t advance.
The attorney repeated that the de-
cisions of the. court announced wero
sufficient to decide the present case.
IF l may say so. 1 believe" contin-
ued Mr.. McReynolds, that the court
vii. make a great mistake If it at
tempts to decide in this case all thai
the sherman antitrust law means
There is borderland ont into which
IL is not necessary to CO." KS.
Chief Justice White suggested thai
where there was borderland there
was a border. Where is it," inquired
the chief justice. What Is your the
Org OF the law, 1 ask YOU and you re-
spond that your theory is that we have
decided this case In your favor"
Mr. McReynolds said that his the
CRY was that the law intended to pre-
vent interference with the free fow
of competition In commerce between
tho States, and that any combination
that was sufficient to interfere with
the free how was within the Sherman
anti-trust law. He explained that he
obstruction of commerce
DO you maintain that 1t takes 81
per cent OF trade TO effect a mate
rial obstruction" inquired Justice
Day. W
Your Honors have hold that 81 per
cent. was sufficient to come within
the law" was the response. IF COM
bination OF less Is held by this court
TO be sufficient, that Is better. do
not believe that obstruction by two
little fellows Is sufficient"
Justice Lurton wanted to know II he
considered that "unrea soma BILE" re-
straint was meant by the statute Mr.
McReynolds replied that he did not;
that material and direct" restraint,
rather than 'unreaso ble," WAS
meant.
In reply 10 the chief justice. Mr.. Me-
Reynolds said That he considered the
law distinguished between restraint OF
trade by an individual with millions
in his pockets and restraint by COM
bin1tion of individuals using an in
corporateed firm.
HIVE All Essential Elements.
Mr.. McReynolds concluded by stating
that III YOU want size as a basis, we
have II here; II you want intent, wa
have intent to restrain; whatever you
want We have thc essential clements in
this case"
After Mr.. McReynolds concluded ITO
i-anccy Nicoll opened for the defend a6
ants. He said he would try to show
that the dark and sonbre colors in
which Mr. McReynolds had painted the
defendants were not true TO life. No
increase In prices to the consumer had y
occurred since the organization OF tho
corporation. he said, hut prices of lear
tobacco had nearly doubled. The low
or court had announced. he said, that
the record was remarkably free from
instances of coercion and oppression.
The arguments VIII he continued
to- morrow and the next day. i