The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-12-06

It's construction the rule at common
/ law.
IL has been said that the court. by
4 Introducing into the construction OF
I the statute common-law distinctions.
has emasculated H. This is obviously
untrue ~ It's Judgment every con-
tract and combination In restraint OF
Interstate trade made with the pur-
pose or necessary effect OF controlling
prices ~ sitting competition. or OF
sstaonshlng In whole or In part a
| monopoly OF such trade. IL condemned
/ py ire statute. The most extreme
critics can not instance case that
ought 10 be condemned under the
s.atute which u not brought within its
| terms as thus construed.
| fIhe suggestion Is also made that the
| supreme court by It's decision In the
last Two cases has committed 10 the
couit the underlined and unlimited dis
| cIetlOn 10 determine whether a case
/ OF restraint OF trade is within the
terms OF the Statute. This IL wholly
untrue A REASONABLE restraint OF
| trade at common law Is well under
stood and IL clearly defined II does
/ not rest In the discretion OF the court.
y must be limited 10 accomplish the
purpose OF lawful main contract TO
! Whlch. In order that II shall he en-
I,orceable at all. IL must he incidental
! IL is void.
The test OF reasonableness was never
"
10 contracts or combinations or con-
| splracles In restraint Of trade whose
purpose was or whose necessary effect
would be 10 stihe competition to con-
Irol prices or establish monopolies.
! rhe courts never assumed power TO
| say that such contracts or combina-
uons or conspiracies might be lawful
/ " the parties TO them were only mod
! crate IN the use OF the power thus Sc
cured and did not exact from the pub
nc too great and eNorbitant prices. II
IL true that many theorists, and others
engaged In business violating the sta
| tute. have hoped that some such line
could be drawn by courts but no court
OF authority has ever attempted IT,
Certainly there is nothing In the de-
cisions 81 the latest two cases from
judicial discretion in enforcing this
statute can derive the slightest sane
Force and Effectiveness OF statute n
Matter OF Growth.
We have been twenty-one years
making this statute effective for the
purposes for which IL was enacted.
The knight case was discouraglng and
seemed TO remit TO the states the whole
available power to attack and sup
press the evils Of the trusts. slowly.
however. the error OF that Judgment
was corrected, and only In the last
three or four years has the heavy
hand Of the law been laid upon the
great illegal combinations that have
exercised such an absolute dominion
over many OF our industries Criminal
prosecutions have been brought and a
number are pending, but juries have
felt averse to convicting for jail sem
sences. and Judges have been most re-
luctant tn impose such sentences on
tnen OF respectable standing in society
whose offense has been regarded as
merely statutory. Still. as the offense
becomes better understood and the
committing OF u partakes more OF
studied and deliberate defiance OF the
law. we can be confident that juries
Will convict individuals and that Jail
sentences will be imposed
The Remedy In Equity by Dissolution.
In the Standard OIL case the SUI
preme and circuit courts found the
combination 10 be monopoly OF the
Interstate business of refining, trans
porting. and marketing petroleum and
It's products. effected and maintained
through thirty-seven different corpor-
atoms. the stock OF which was held by
commanded the dissolution OF this
combination. directed the transfer and
pro rata distribution by the New Jer-
sey company OF the stock held by IL in
the thirty-seven corporations 10 and
among its stockholders: ard the cor
porations and individual defendants
were enJoined from consplring or COM
bining To restore such monopoly; and
all agreements between the subsidiary
corporations tending TO produce or
bring about further violations OF the
act We're enioined.
In the Tobacco case. the court found
that the individual defendants. TWEEN
ty-nine In number. had been engaged
I'm successful effort 10 acquire com
plete dominion over the manufacture,
sale. epti distribution OF tobacco In
this country and abroad. and that this
had been done by combinations made
With purpose and effect to stif1e com
petition, control prices. and establish
monopoly. not only in the manufac-
ture OF tobacco, but also of in-foil and
licorice used In its manufacture and
OF It's products or cigars. cigarettes.
presented a far more complicated and
difficult case than the Standard Oil
suit for decree which would effec-
tuate the Will OF the court and end
the violation OF the statute. There
was here no single holding company
rs IN the case OF the Standard Oil
Trust The main company was the
American Tobacco company. manu-
pany. The plan adopted to destroy
the combination and restore competi-
tion involved the redivision OF the
capital anG pihnts Of the whole trust
between some OF the companies con-
stituting the trust and new companies
organized for the purposes OF the de-
cree and made parties 10 IT, and num-
bering. new and old fourteen.
situation After Reimbursement.
The American Tobacco company
(old). readjusted capital. s92 600. 900:
the Liggett q Meyers Tobacco COM
pany new. capital. S67 900, 900: the
p. Lorllard company new. capital.
s4T, 000. 900; and the r J. Reynolds To-
bacco company (old). capital, s7525,-
900. are chiefly engaged in the manu-
facture and sale OF chewing and
smoking tobacco and cigars The
former one tin-foil company Is divided
into two. one OF 1926, 0cO capital and
the other of $500 600 The one snuff
company Is divided into three com.
panics. one with a capital of $4,000
600 another with a capital OF $S 600
600 and third with capital OF SS.-
600. 600 The licorice companies are
two, one with capital OF s5.75S 200.
and another with a capital OF $4,000
600 There Is. also. the British
American Tobacco company British
corporation. doing business abroad
with capital OF s26. 600, 900 the Porto
Rican Tobacco company. with cap
it'll OF 81 500. 900. and the corporation
Of United Cigar stores, with cap
ital OF $4,000. 900.
Under this arrangement. each OF the
different kinds OF business will be dis
trihuted between two or more COM
panies with e division of the prominent
brands in tho same tobacco products,
80 as to make competition not only
possible but necessary Thus the
smoktnR-tobacco business OF the coun-
try is divided SO that the present in
dependent companies have 21.3s per
cent, while thcAmerican Tobacco COM
pany will have 33.QS per cent. the Lig-
! lard company ease per cent. and .ae
Reynolds company 2.66 per cent. The
stock OF the other thirteen companies
4 both nreferrfd and common. has been