The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1911-06-01

"aa "SI~fFAAsosus- TWO tnSHseh
Corporations. and T~~nIy-sln~ In
disiduaI Is~f~ndant~-TsA- Trust -
aisen an Opportunity so Dasinss-
CRATE and R~sr~ate = Consilslnn ol
Tran>arting susin~>> Within the
Ian Resrats the guie II Reason.
Washington. d. c. May es-Thc
Government to-day son a ss~epgug
victory over the so-calied tobacco
trust" when the Supreme Court OF
the United States held the American
Tobacco Company and It's allied cor
porations TO be operating III viola
tion Of The sherman antitrust lAw
By directing that the combination
be forbidden the privilege of inter
state commerce or be placed In the
hands OF d receiver unless IL disInte-
CRATES in harmony With the laN with
in SIX or the most eight months. the
court is regarded 40 have dealt with
the tobacco corporation more drasti-
caIiy than with the Standard oil Com
pauy. OF New Jersey. whose dissolu-
tion was ordered two weeks ago.
Both the first and second sections
Of the sherman antitrust Law have
been violated by the so-called tobacco
trust. according 10 the court Not
only has il, In the eyes o fthe court.
restrained wrongfully and unlawfuily
interstate commerce. but 1t has at
tempted 10 monopolize the tobacco
business 10 the injury of the public
and of its competitors.
While the decree was regarded as
unusually severe, at the same time
there was a touch OF leniency in not
making the combination an outlaw
now"
The various elements Of the COM
bination are 10 be given an opportun-
ity, under the supervision OF the
United States Circuit Court for the
Southern District of New York, OF
recreation so that there may be
brought about "a new condition
with and not repugnant to the law"
The opinion of the Court was an
nounced by Chief Justice White, who
also delivered the opinion OF the
Court in the Standard Oil case. The
entire Court agreed that the tobacco
com bination violated the Sherman
antitrust law, so as TO call for the
application Of the rule of reason" in
determining what restraints OF trade
were forbidden by the act. In this
respect the division of the Court was
the same as in the Standard Oil case.
Justice Harlan also took issue with
the rest of the Court as to the re-or-
ganiZation of the Tobacco Company,
saving that he had found nothing in
the record which made him 'at all
anxious to perpetuate any new COM
bination among these companies,
which the Court comedies at all times
exhibited a conscious wrong-doing.
The Court reiterated its determina-
ton to follow "the rule Of reason" in
determining what restraints Of trade
violate the Sherman Antitrust law.
Chief Justice White explained at
length the decision OF the Court in
the Standard OIL case, but did not
qualify the reasoning in that case SO
as TO harmonic it in any particular
withthe dissenting views expressed by
Associate Justice Harlan and by other
critics of the decision. Tonight IL is
regarded as settled that the rule OF
reason" will prevail throughout the
land in the Interpretation of the Sher-
man Antitrust law until at least the
personnel of the Court greatly chang
es or the Sherman Antitrust law is
amended.
In reality the decision was nothing
less than a deliberate exemplification
of the application Of the rule OF rea-
SON. to "undisputed facts" From
the date OF the organization OF the
first combination the Court found
that there was a purpose 10 acquire
dominion and control Of the tobacco
trade, not by the mere exertion OF the
ordinary right 10 contract and TO
trade but by methods devised in or
der to monopoliZe the trade, by driv-
ing competitors out of business. This
purpose was carried out ruthlessly ac-
cording TO the Court, upon the as
sumption that TO work upon the the
ory or play upon the cupidity of COM
petitors would make successes posi-
BILE Such action viewed in the light
of reason as regarded by the Court
was violating the law.
On practically every point on
which the Government appealed from
the decision of the lower court. Ii
scored a victory to-day. In the first
place, James B. Duke and the twenty
eight other individual defendants
were held to be parties to the unlaw-
full combination instead of being
freed from further responsibility in
the case, as directed by the Court be-
low.
CONTINUED on Page ID