OCR Text |
Show TOBflGiTWfJ- United States Suprems Cot O Cife Cr.::J : Dcivo Tcd3y Holds 1M t.;3 Cc::i:;:.i Is i.i Restraint of tr!3 a l:!2t::n cf st:r:i ' Anti-Trust la;v; Iqjitttr sin:;;.. t::J JkVASniNqTpN D-JJ : Mb. 29. The, tobacco, trust is hA,bv the supreme fnurt to be in restraint of trade and a violation of sections sec-tions 1 and 2 of the Sherman, anti-trust law. Justice White announced the decision this afternoon, , The court deeided as followt' ' That the combination in and of itself, bk well as ea h and all of the elements composing it, whether corporate or individual, whether considered collectively or separately, be decreed to bo in v-straint v-straint of trade and an attempt to monopolize and a monopolization monopoliza-tion within the first and second tections of the anti-tnist act. "Second That the court below, ia order to s;iva effective force to our do cree in thia regard, lie directed to hear the parties, by evidence or otherwise, as it mar be deemed proper, for the purpose of ascertaining ami determining determin-ing upon some plan or method of dissolving dis-solving the combination and of recreating, re-creating, out of the elements now com ring it. asw condition, which shall houestly in hannonv with aad not repugnant tc the1 law." The American Tubsceo companv and its accesaoriea and sitbordinute corporations corpora-tions and companies, including thr English corporation, today were held by the supreme court of the I'nited States to be co-operators in a combine tioa illegal under tliu fliermsn anti trust act Tha court sent tha case back to the lower court with -directions to hear further the parties so at to ascertain ascer-tain whether a new condition cannot be recreated in harniouv with the law. Juatiea Harlan concurred in part with the court's opinion aud dissented in part. paste. re-iuIrM In the menuff-ture of tn-ttf-co. tile MacAnorewe A Forties cur. f-any. orianl1 bv the Continental, tiav-US tiav-US no competitor, ft e said: Htd Monopoly of Tinfoil. It wat also said Hist the dr'en'tnK hid s mnnurolv In the t)nf"il t-'t-1 ,(-. the Coniey Kotl coinpanv. of p-liu h tee Arrerican Tobacco mmiwnv h-!u a tri:i -lorltv i.f h, fin k. rnMlonnT 7.'. rPr ,..,r of the tlofoti muno'nctniea In thl i-m-try. Bolh the hrmu anl toe f'in mri. Topv't. were Mlrt iwj'nv. r.en c'"f-it tn vlnlHllon tf lllff iifrman untl-1 :ur law. Another ph- of (i-e lltl-Mlon r-m-cernM th- foreign trtrte. Thi llli1.n '-ImrvfM thtt ihe American T"lci o r"-'-tied entrei lull cootrei-t. -i-h ' imoert,.f Tooarro c-tmrmiv. th. .fi ( - t "BrttUh trimt."' herehv the '-ir t limit It. ai-ttvlM.e lo Great HrM.wi ev.ei.i as to the ptm-hitee of a rertn n tn "i f leaf In Amertra eo1 the f-nn;-- i....n.l Mtntt Ma bualnca to the l;n.'el h'-e-. It w-as elleaeri th the t-vn "tru-" '-r. aanltei th Brltlmh-Arrertrsn T-'i--'-'i comtiany In take over the expert h.i. -i of both and divide Ih. rir l,i,r,. them. Theee ;ontracta vtare tr.inr in 0 real Britain. Basil of Appeal. The circuit court foun-1 i-.t tl--r-tatcl 1 rertnlot of ronioie... h :t t nothing- ahout Ihe chaiaea of mon...-tna. mon...-tna. In tla decree, the r-nurt tt-.t .-1 the petition a- to the ! np.T.nl o.n,,Mriv and the Brliih-Amertran oooitiaov. e -i 1 from this feature of tle dei-iee the v v . ernment appealed to the aotueote in. It rtlanilaaed Ihe petition aa lo the I iu'-t Clsar Htorea rompanv. and frtim thla, too the government appealed. The flrriilt court decreed that the American Toliaoeo t-ompanv. the Amen, can Bnuff company, the inenian rir.r company, tha Amerl'-an fitoaie rimitiiiiiv and MacAndrewa A Forhee runimny era unlawful cotnhlpatlona and retrain.i them from anaaiflne In In'eratate or f.ir. Stan commert-e. From thla. The def,f,. ants appealed to tha aupreme court. Ko did the aovernmenL The tfn-erntnetit ro,. leded bees ttae the fon'ev Foil fniifHiir and the Individual defendant, he-'e I h.-Jnmei h.-Jnmei B. tuke, taara not wade parties' to Ihe conaplrai-v to reatraln and hermit all were not held to be attempting to nv-aopollse. Second Big Trust Proftcutlon. The American tobacco corporations were .made the tsrset of. aha eiriiid Sl( "truel" proeeeultun Ot rec-ynt yeara. The flrat vea the Standard Oil. Becauee Ike testimony taken In the tobacco ca.ee ttas not ao extensive as that in I ha Standard Oil th two caaet were before the supreme court, for consideration at the eanie time. The attempt of the government to dissolve dis-solve the tobeoco corporation as violating tha Sherman anti-trust law took shape In 107. In that year a petition waa nled In the United States circuit court at New York. The government naked that the American Tobacco company. Its rjlTlcers. directors and Affiliated corporattona ba prevented and enjoined from reatralnln and monopolising commerce In tobacco. The restraints and the monopolies el lefrea by .the government were said to hsve been obtained by en Intricate ayttem ayt-tem ef corporate orcanlsathvin. It began In lino when the flrat American Tobacco company was organised. The new flora pany took over the bualnese of ftve in dependent cigarette concerns. What Circuit Court Decreed. Th cirruir eoort d-cT?d thf ln American Tot't-o company, th Arr-ri-on 8nuff eomrmn. ihe Amiltan dgnr oompanv, P. LorlllArd cinijnv. ft .1. Reynold Tobacco companv. luaok ) Durham Tobaon company and tt-e Cun y Foil company held ahare tn anecirtM corporations cor-porations end enjoined t.tem from actjuir-Inff actjuir-Inff plants or buslnens or votln th harea of nd from exerclelnir control over the "uhe(rllrv- romi-anlr. and enjoined en-joined th "uhaldtarv" Cuiiiihi ntra from permitting control. Both the ritrendttma and Ihe government appfulei, Tlie Uiner objected principally H:uuf the imiril Tobacco company, the Irit.h American Tobacco company and Ilia Tnlted rn.nr Stores onmiiany were not Included anion the "etihstdary" comiianUis, and betau. the hoMInf companies were not prutiio-tted prutiio-tted from colleritnir dividends from the "stiheldlary" companies. The appeals were argued before the preme court flrat tn January. and the second time In January. 1911. Promt-nent Promt-nent attorneys appeared. For the -ernment Attorney General Wlckra am . and hia special asslntant. J. C. M Kv- 1 no Id a addressed the court. For the American Tohuco companion there up- feared John O. Johnson of Philadelphia. elancey Nlooll and Junius IHarksr of New Tork, while William B. Hornn or Ting Tobacco Monopolised. In UN the Continental Tobeoco com- ; pany was Incorporated lo take over Ihei plii tobacco bualneae of the A merlcan Tobacco company and that of Ave Independent Inde-pendent plus manufacturers. In 100 the American tinuft company was Incorporated to take over the snuff bualneae of the American To ha coo company, com-pany, of the Continental Tobaoco company com-pany and of two other Independent menu-fact menu-fact tire ra. Xn 101 the American Cigar company was Incorporated to take over the business busi-ness of the American Tobacco company and other manufacturers and sellers of cigar . cheroots and stogies. In the same year the Consolidated Tobacco To-bacco uompeny was Incorporated to take over tn exchange for Its bonds substantially substan-tially all of the stock of (he American Tobacco company and the Continental Tobacco company. In It J the American Stngle company was Incorporated lo take over the atngie business of Ihe American Cigar company, the American Tobacco company ana the Continental Tobacco company. In !-4 the American Tobacco company, the Continental Tobacco company and the Consolidated Tobacco company were merged Into the preeeot American To-! To-! bee co company. of New York argued for the Imperial Tobacco To-bacco company and Sol M. 8 1 roo k of New York for the United Cigar Storvs oompany. "Hoar of Service" Law Upheld. The hours of service lew for railroad employeea." passed by congress In l'i. waa upheld today aa constitutional by te supreme court of the United Stale. Toe decision wss announced by Justice Hughes tn the tt case Instituted by tue Baltimore Je Ohio Rail roar) company. The act made It unlawful for anv common com-mon carrier engaged in interstate commerce com-merce to permit any trainman subject to the act to remain on duty fur a longer period than sixteen consecutive hour, or any telegraph operator more than nine or thirteen hours, according to the time the telegraph station waa opened for bualneae. bual-neae. The a t aJao created periods of rest for the employees. The Baltimore A Ohio Railroad com pany attacked the law as unconstitutional on the ground that it applttl lo intrastate intra-state as well aa to interstate railroads and employeea. The order by which me Interstate commerce commission p.aced the law Into operation was attacked also. The railroad claimed that congress iuK not and did not attempt to de.eraie to To Destroy Competition. The government claimed that all these organisations were created with the definite defi-nite purpoee to destroy competition and that' they accomplished that purpose. Each step waa attacked as a part of an unlawful p'an, whose development and progress was advanced. It was charged, by duress, oppression and unfair methods Intended to drive out andakeep out competitors com-petitors and secure monopolies. The defendants claimed that nothing waa to ba found in the organisation of these corporations, but the orderly, natural nat-ural and legitimate development of a great business. They said tha acquisitions acquisi-tions had been proper and that no Intent In-tent to restrain trade or monopolise trade bad prompted the creation of corporations. cor-porations. L In addition It waa charged that the American Tobacco company acquired eontrol of the United Cigar B tores com- fflny. which conducts retail stores in rge cities and thereby was seeking dominion do-minion In th retail business, an avenue ave-nue absolutely necessary to effective competition- The tobacco organisation wae charged with having a monopoly of the Hforlre me oommiaaioti iw twr ' 1 ' i i . . reports re-ports of violation of the law: lhat labor snd expense neceeaarv lo mai.e t reports conatltuted a taking of the rsl! -road's property without one proceaa of law and therefore In violation of the constitution, snd that It compeMed eetf Incrimination by officers and emr'loy--e of the railroad, slao In violation of ttie conatltutlon. The objei-tlons to the lew were met with denials by the government. B.'t- . the lew Itaelf snd the order, frs-ned . Ihe Interstate commerte commtaek'n. were upheld as constitutional ty ttie circuit cir-cuit court of the Totted States for tue district of Maryland, where lira caae orls-Inated. |