The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-05-30

by the very nature and character oi their organizations would be able to continue the wrongful situation.
 Serious Difficulties
 Another reason was because the methods of apparent ownership by which the wrongful intent was, in part carried out and the subtle devices used to accomplish the wrong contemplated were of such a character that 1t was probably impossible to restore the prior lawful conditions.
 third reason was that the methods devised by which the various essential elements to the successful operation oi the tobacco business for any particular aspect have been so separated under various subordinate combinations, yet so unified by way of the control worked out by the scheme here condemned, are so involved that any specific form of relief which we might now order in substance and effect might operate real- ly to injure the public and it may be to perpetuate a wrong"
 Two general remedies, Chief Justice White said, might be resorted to, the first of these he described as the allow ance of permanent injunction re- straining the combination from con- tinuing to engage in interstate com merce until the illegal situation be cured. The condition he had in mind was the appoin tment of q receiver. The chief justice said the court did not think it could now" direct the imme- diate applications of either of these remedies.
 we so consider as to the first" he added, "because in view of the extent of the combination, the vast field which it covers, the all-embracing character of it's activities concerning tobacco and it's products to at once stay the movement in interstate commerce of the products which the combination or its cooperating forces produce or control might inflict in- finite injury upon the public by leading to a stoppage of supply and great en- hancement of prices The second because the extensive power which would result from resorting to a receivership might not only do grievous injury to the pub lie, but also cause widespread and per haps irreparable loss to many innocent people,
 At last, he said, the decree should be as follows:
 That the combination in and of itself as well as each and all of the elements composing it, whether corporate or in- dividual, whether considered collectively or separately, be decreed in restraint of trade and an attempt to monopolize and a monopolization in violation of the first and second sections of the antitrust act.
 Second, that the court below, in order to give effective force to our decree in this regard, be directed to hear the par ties by evidence or otherwise. as 1t may be deemed proper, for the purpose of ascertaining and determining upon some plan or method of dissolving the combi- nation and of recreating out of elements now composing it a new condition which shall be honestly in harmony with and not repugnant to the law.
 Third-That for the accomplishment of these purposes, taking in view the diffi- culty of the situation, a period of six months is allowed from the receipt of our mandate with leave, however, in the event the judgment of the court below shows the necessities of the situation re- quire it, to extend such a period to further time not to exceed 60 days.
 Fourth-That in the event before the expiration of the period thus fixed, if a condition of disintegration, in harmony with the law, is not brought about as either the consequence of the action Of the court in determining an issue on the subject or in accepting plan agreed upon, it shall be the duty of the court either by way of an injunction restrain ing the movement of the products of the combination in the channels of interstate or foreign commerce or by the appoint ment of a receiver to give effect to the requirements of the statute.
 Pending the bringing about of the re- suit directed by the court, each and all of the defendants, individuals as well as corporations to be restrained from doing any act which might further extend or enlarge the power of the combination by any means or devise whatsoever.
 In view of the considerations, we have stated, we leave the matter 10 the court below to work out compliance with the law without unnecessary injury to the public or the rights of private prop erty.
 While in many substantial respects our conclusion is in accord with that reached by the court below. and while also the relief which we think ought to be awarded in some respects is CO., incident with that which the court grant ed, in order to prevent any complications and to clearly define the situation, we think instead of affirming and modifying our decree, in view of the broad nature of our conclusions, should be one of reversal and remanding, the costs In this court to be borne by the defendants below, with directions to the court below to enter a decree in conformity with this opinion and to take such further steps as may be necessary to fully carry out the directions which we have given.
 And 1t Is so ordered"
 Is Second Prosecution
 The American Tobacco corporations were made the target of the second big trust" prosecution of recent years The first was the Standard oil. Because the testimony taken in the tobacco case was not so extensive as that in the Standard Oil, the two cases were before the su- preme court for consideration at the same time
 The attempt of the government to dis solve the Tobacco corporation as violat- ing the Sherman antitrust law took shape in 1907 In that year, petition was filed in the United States circuit court at New York. The government asked that the American Tobacco com- pany its officers, directors and affiliated corporations, be prevented and epjoined from restraining and monopolizing com- merce in tobacco.
 The restraints and the monopolies al- legged by the government, were said to have been obtained by an intricate sys-