Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-05-30

Of the tin foil manufactured in this
country. Both the licorice and the foil
monopolies were said to have been OBJ
tanned in violation of the Sherman anti
trust law.
Another phase Of the litigation concerned
the foreign trade. The petition charged
that the American Tobacco company had
entered into contracts with the Imperial
Tobacco company the so-called British
trust" whereby the latter should limit it's
activities to Great Britain, except as to the
purchase Of a certain amount OF leaf in
America, and the former should limit its
business to the United States. 1t was
alleged that the two trusts organized the
British American Tobacco company to take
over the export business OF both and divide
the world between them. These contracts
were made in Great Britain.
Decision of Circuit Court.
The circuit court found that there ex-
listed a restraint of commerce, but said
nothing about the charges of lmonopolizing.
In its decree the court dismissed the petit
ton as to the Imperial company and the
British-Afnerican company and from this
feature of the decree the government APP
pealed to the supreme court. The court
dismissed the petition as to the United
Cigar Stores company, and from this, too,
the government appealed.
The circuit court decreed that the Ameri-
can Tobacco company, the American Snuff
company, the American Cigar company, the
American Stogie company and MacAndrews
& Forbes company were unlawful combina-
lions and restrained them from engaging
in interstate or foreign commerce. From
this the defendants appealed to the supreme
court. So did the government. The gov
eminent objected because the Conley Fol
company and the individual defendants
headed by James B. Duke, were not made
parties to the conspiracy to restrain and
because all were not held to be attempting
to monopo1ize. y
The circuit court decreed that the Ameri.
can Tobacco company, the American Snuff
company. the American Cigar company, p
Lorillard company, r. ]. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, -Blackwell's Durham Tobacco
company and the Conley Foil company held
shares in specified corporations and en-.
Joined them from acquiring the plants OIL
business or voting the shares Of and from
exercising control over the subsidiary
companies, and enjoined the subsidiary
companies from permitting control. Both
the defendants and the government ap.
pealed. The latter objected principally be.
cause the Imperial Tobacco company, the
British-American Tobacco company and the
United Cigar Stores company were not In.
cluded among the subsidiary companies
| and because the holding companies were
not prohibited from collecting dividends
from subsidiary" companies.
The appeals were argued before the SUI
prerne court, first in January, 1910. and the
second time in January, 1911. Promlnen,
attorneys appeared. For the government
Attorney General Wickersham and his spe.
cial assistant, ]. C. McReynolds, addressed
the court For the American Tobacco com,
paIlies there appeared John G. johnson OF
Philadelphia, De Lancey Nicoll and Junius
Parker OF New York, while William B
HornblOwer OF New York argued for the
Imperial Tobacco company and Sol M
Stroock of New York for the United Cigar
Stores company.