Newspapers / The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, … / Nov. 16, 1908, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
CHAKLOTTE DAILY' OBSERVER, KOVEilBER 10, 1 r - i A.CC0 1KTJST DECISION IlY THE U. 8. CIRCUIT . COtTRT Opinion Handed Down Jp - J wig UcomML'te Mlum ta American Tobacco Company t Declared to Be a Corporauoa in ww o coee- rnhioa Md Therefore Qwllty of lolsllng the Shennaa Act, and the Irimenuaf Uplntoa of 4 Bare warn, " Who IWww From therdlc(i of - FoDowlng la th f uB text of the - opinion of Judge Lacombe, presiding tn the United Btatee Circuit Court of ' New York, la the case against tne American Tobacco company, la which ta defendant company waa held to be a corporation acting la restraint cf trade and therefore In rtolation '.of the Sherman antitrust act. and the ; , dissenting opinion of Judge Ward. vv' The United SUtee or America vs. The American Tobacco-Company, et al. ex fore Laeoms, Cose, Word end ' " ' - Noye. Circuit Judge. . OPINION OP JUDGE LACOMBE. i The act of July 2d, 1I0. In he , first section declares to be illegal - "every contract, combination in the ' form ef trust or otherwise, or con . , aplracy, ta restraint of trade or cem tneroe among the several States, or with foreign nation." That declara tlon. ambiguous when enacted, is, as , the writer conceives no longer open , te construction in the Inferior Federal courts. Disregarding various dicta 1 and following the several propositions - which have been approved by sucoes ,', tve majorities of the Supreme Court. . ' this language Is to be construed as 1 v. prohibiting any contract or comblna , , lon whose direct effect is. to prevent. the free play of competition, and thus " tend to deprive the countrv of the ser- f ' vices et any number of Independent dealers, however small. As thus con- .' strued the statute Is revolutionary. By this It Is not Intended to. Imply that ' - she construction Is incorrect. When we remember the circumstances under ,,' which the act was passed, the popular prejudice against large aggregations - , of capital and the loud outory agalnat , - combination which might In one way x or another Interfere to suppress or . check the full, free and wholly unre strained competition which was as- ' , euraed, rightly or wrongly, to be the 1 1 very "lire or trade," it would not be ' surprising to find that Congress had '" responded to what seemed to be the wishes of a large part. if 1 not the majority f the ; , community and that it Intend . ed to secure such competition against , the' operation of (natural laws. The 'set may be termed revolutionary be , - cause, before Its passage, tne courts had recognired a "restraint of trade' yx which was held not to be unfair, but . permissible, although it operated In . sjom measure to resist competition By Insensible degree, under the op .. -ration of many cases, business, mun- - wfacturlng and trading alike, has ' more and more developed a tendency towards larger and largor aggrega . tlons of' capital and more extensive v combinations of individual enterprise. - ir It Is contended that, under existing ' " conditions, In that way only can pro ; . duction be increased and cheapened, new markets opened and developed, stability In reasonable ' prices secured ' and Industrial progress assured. But - every aggregation of Individuals or corporations, formerly Independent. Immediately aiponlts formation ter minates an existing competition: whether or not some other competi tion, may subsequently arise. The act, as above construed prohibits every contract or combination in restraint of com petition. 8lse la not made the ; V'test: two individuals who have-been v driving rival express wagons between : wlitagea in two contiguous States, who enter into a combination to Join forces aad operate a single line restrain an . " existing competition and it would seem to make little difference whether 1 , they make such combination more ef fective by forming a partnership or ,. Accepting this construction of the ' statute as It would seem this court Must accept It there can be little " a oubt that It lias been violated In this T.. case. The formation of the original V , American Tobacco Company, which ante-date the Sherman act, may bs disregarded. But the present Amerl " can Tobacco Company was formed by subsequent merger of the original J -company - with the Continental To- p tacco Company and the Consolidated Tobacco Company and when that ; merger became complete two of Its jl existing competitors in the tobacco - j cosiness were eliminated. k. ,. ' What benefits may have come from this combination, or from the others - complained of, it is not material t. in- - quire, nor need subsequent buslnexs . ' methods be considered, nor the ef- . feets, on production or prices. The ,' record -In this case does not Indicate . that there has been any lncr-ana in . the price of tobacco products ti th? 'customer. There is an absence of .- persuasive evidence that by unfair competition or improper practices . Independent dealers .have been dra '. gooned into giving up their individual -enterprises and selling out to the principal defendant. In this connec- : tlon. Interesting testimony is given by ' .one ef the government's witnesses. ' The deponent was for many years an -Independent dealer and secretary of ' the Independent Tobacco Manufac 'torers Aseoclatlon. He testified: My business was conducted by me r alone; I had no partner, no corpora ' tlon. It had got to be a large bust . ttesa and if anything happened to me s there was no one there to continue It. The value of the business was In g brand and I became fearsome what ' weuld happen to it If I would be dis- a bled la any way: It would not be of - mech value to my estate unless some one had a knowledge of the business beyond which you cannot conduct It vrofltabry personally. It will g-t to big that It requires an organization, And then, too, X was only Identified s a scrap tobacco manufacturer, and ge'nz by precedent, the consuming Jublie of tobacco changes every 10, 11 or It years and I have nrured that might happen again, and It wouldn't use scrap tobacco and might use eomethlag else and then I would not have- mach businesa. I thought; whereas the American Tobacco Com pany had 1een In conference with me; j knew the officers and I made up my mind when a proper proposition was made te tne. much as was satisfactory to me. I would be very anxious to e fflliate myself with good tits; to 1 aero organisation. Urge enough and etrong enough ta take care of aJJ eon MiOB that might com pp. I -wis rnt Induced to sett out by a decrease c f profits or by any onfarr competi n: I never had any fear they could f rive me out t buslnees." During the exiitencta of the American, Tobao ro Company - new enterprises "have wn started some with small capital It competition with ; It and have t - riv n. The price of leaf tobc- 1 : s ntr material except for one brief - rioii ft abnormal conditions, eteadi- M '-ased until it ajuv-v nearly ; 1. while at the same time 111, : ; -Jonal acre have been devot ! t'-tacce crept and the consump- - i cf the leaf has greatly in creased. ch the enterprise of defendant, i si larre expense, new. markets - AmrtrRH tobacco have been open rr 4"v!"r.ed in Ind.a. China and vfre l it ail thia Is lmma e.i. i one ef thee rwrchase of j ' rn, corr; :..!ned Cf la the petition.' waa a contract and com bination in restraint ef a competition existing when It waa entered Into, and that Is sufficient to bring it within the baa ef this drastic statute.'- .; - A targe part of the record' la taken Up with i testimony as. te concealment of the ' relations - existing between of the defendants. It it dime u It to see what bearing this has on the question te controversy.;; If aa agree ment by a corporation to. acquire majority of the stock xif a competing corporation la ebnoxlous - to . the statute, its vioa is certainly not eradi cated by the promptest publicity- If. on the other hand, such an .agree ment is innocent it does not become guilty merely becatse the parties to it keep their own counsel about their mutual transactions, ; - It Is contended that the case at bar is not within the statute since the various combinations complained of deal primarily with manufacture, and United States vs. Knight lt United States; a. Is cited la support of that proposition.- It seems to the 'writer, however, that subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have modified the opinion In that case, and mat tne one at bar Is as much within the statute as waa the combination condemned in Loews vs. Lawlor, 18 United Stales, 174. Relief under the etatute should be granted against tne several domeattn eorDoratlons defendant. Tha Im aerial Tobacco company oi Great Britain and Ireland, Limited, is ens of the defendants. It Is a urn iah cor Deration and entered into contract with The American Tobacco Cnmnanv in the Cltv 01 Jnaon, where such contract waa a legal and nmnr nn ir la annarently tne con tention of petitioner that subsequent acts of the Imperial Tobacco Com pany in this country practically amount to the entering Into a combi nation or contract of the sort speci fied in the statute. So far as appears the only transactions of that com pany her are these: It buys leaf to bacco of the American grower in very large quantities by its own Independ ent force of nurchaslna- employes; it does not sell its manufactured pro ducts here indeed such products, having to pay both tariff duties and revenue tax. could not toe sold here except at a loss, save in the case of a few fancy high-priced brand, n may be an enlightened public policy to prohibit an alien corporation from buying Its raw material in tnis coun try unless It sends Us product her to compete with American manufac turers; but, If It be. this aU seems not to hav gone to that extent, ine petition should be dismissed as to the Imperial Tobacco Company. A like disposition should be mads as to the British-American Company. As to relief. In ths main brief it is prayed that the domestic defend ants The American Tobacco Com pany, American Snuff Company and others enumerated should be re strained from carrying on Interstate or foreign commerce, until conditions existing before illegal contracts or combination were entered Into are estored. Such relief la certainly drastic enouxh and should be em dent. In the petition It Is prayed that receivers be appointed for the various companies, who, apparently are to conduct a tobacco business and create some sort of artificial competi tion to take the place of the natural competition which, it Is alleged, was destroyed by the combinations. Such a scheme seems Impracticable and Is wholly unnecessary. I concur with Judge Cox In his reasoning and con elusions touching the United Cigar Stores Company and the R. P. -Rich ardson Company. And also concnr in the suspension of Injunction pend ing appeal. OPINION OF TJDOE WARD, DIB SENTINO I feel constrained to dissent from the judgment of the court In this case. The United States charges In its bill that the defendant have been and are engaged in an Illegal combi nation to restrain and monopolise trade, in violation of an act cf Con gress passed July 1, 180, known as the "Sherman act. and prays for re lief, by injunction and i otherwise vkn outline of the act complained of as evldencln.g a combination in restraint of trade and a monopoly if as follows: In January. 11(0, the American To bacco Company was Incorporated to take over the business of five lnde pendent concerns almost wholly in the manufacture of cigarettea. This company substantially covered the entire output of cigarettes la the United State. It is no defense that it was Incorporated some six month before the passage of the Sherman act, if an Illegal combination within the meaning of that act. United State vs. Trana-Mlssourt Freight Associa tion, 116 U. 8.. 280. There 1 no ev idence that the combination was the result of cutting of prices or of a commercial war of any kind. The company, from time to time bought omer plants engagea in manufactur ing smoking tobacco and others en gaged in manufacturing plug tobacco. In 1888 the Continental Tobacco Company waa Incorporated to - taka over the plug tobacco business of the American Tobacco Company and tn business ef five other independent concerns manufacturing principally plug tobacco. There had been a war In the way of cutting of prices in certain brands of plug tobacco which probably had something to do with the formation of It. Subsequently the American Tobac co Cempaay bought or obtained con trol of many plant engaged la th manufacture ef smoking tobacco, and the Continental many plant engaged In th manufacture of plug tobacco. Some of them were absorbed, and others like the defendants, continued their cprporat existence. In 1800 the American Snuff Com pany was Incorporated to take over the snuff business oi th American Tobacco Company, of the Continental Tobacco company, and of two other independent manufacturers. In 1891 the American Cigar Com pany waa incorporated to take over the business of the American Tobac co Cmpany and Powell Smith A Company in manufacturing and sell ing cigars, cheroots and (togies. In the same year th Consolidated Tobacco Company waa Incorporated to take over as a holding -company, in exchange for its bonds, substan tially all of the stock of ths Ameri can Tobacco Company and th Con tinental Tobacea Company. -- - ' In 1881 the American togie Com pany wa incorporated to takeover the stogie basin ef th Anerlcan Cigar Company, th American Tobac co Company and the Continental .To bacco Company. . , . la .188 .the t America Tobacco Company, - the .. Continental To bacco Company and the v Consoli dated Tobacco Company wr merged into the , present American Tobacco Company. r.-vrV- i-- : The companies above named, being the principal defendants, ,- acquired control of the plant of many other concerns engaged In manufacturlni or distributing tobacco, and also of concerns supplying - things . necessary In the tobacco bueineea, such 'ma tin foil, licorice root and it products, bags, - boxes. ' sign, and briar, pipe. Most f the vendors of the tobacco plants entered into contracts not o ens-s ?e la, the business sold tn certain territory for a certain time, which I regard as proper for the protection of the vendee. -.-.fv- ' -:--'x---, " - Referring : to - the -: combination of 1804, which . created the T present American Tobacco Company, It 1 te be remembered that the Consolidated Oomnanr was a mere holding com pany, - and' the American Tobacco Company an dthe Continental Tobac co Company were la no sense compet itors, the former being engaged in manufaoturlna- cluz and twist tobac co. Their merger waa not in restraint of trade unleas it could be regarded an illegal monopoly because it pro duced from sixty to ninety, per cent of the total output et the United States of the various article it. man ufactured. .-,'). -.-. . The profits of the present Ameri can Tobacco Company and U con trolled companies have been and are very large, and their- businesa, . ex cluding cigar, covers not lea than sventy-nve per cent, of th wnoie output of manufactured tobacco tn the United State. , , Th government has offered ta vi sane a - aupuiatioa (government Kx. No. 8) of all th defendants x cept the Imperial Tobacco Company, the United Cigar Store Company. R L. Richardson Company. Inc., and W, C. Reed, which must be taken cor rectly to describe the way ths bual nes is done, there being nothing In tne record to tne contrary, as ioiiow: "We admit that all the vendors and corporation defendant mentioned In the petltloa as engaged In the manu facture and sal of tobacco product except imperial Tobacco company, Limited, purchased or now purchase some or aij of th requisite raw ma terial in State or countries other than those in which the factories were or are located, and had or hat It transported thence through the me dium Of common carriers to .said fac torles, and employed or employ trav ellng salesmen who solicited or ollc it in State or countries other than in which the factory waa or is located order for the tobacco product which by them ware or are transmitted to said factory or other chief office of the manufacturer, and If approved they are filled by the delivery of the gooas to a common carrier, where the factory was or la located, duly con signed to th purchaser, title passing to said purchaser on said delivery to tne common carter." It can hardly be doubted that manufacturer who make hi pro ducts of material found within the State of manufacture and sells his entire product there Is not engaged In Interstate commerce. It will make no difference that the purchasers send and sell the manufacturer's product throughout the United States, Except that they buy their raw ma terial in other States, this 1 th way the manufacturing defendant in this case do their business. Their busl ness is manufacturing and th fact that they get raw material in other States and send agent to other States to solicit orders does not make their business lnterstaat commerce. This certainly appear to be the view of the Supreme Court in the cas Of the United States vs. S3. C Knight Co- 156 u. B., l. In it th American Sua-ar Refining company ana four refineries in pah- adelphia were all engaged in compe tition with each other in the Import ing of raw sugar Into the United States, refining It and selling it throughout the country. Their busi ness was exactly like that of th prln ctpal defendants, except that it wa in a necessary of Ufa Instead of a lux ury. A combination was made be tween'the American Sugar Refining Company and the Pennsylvania refin eries by th exchange of all their cap ital stock for shares of its capital stock. The monopoly wa greater than in the case now under consider atlon because the combination manu factured ninety-eight per cent of the enure sugar output of the United States. The bill averred that the American Sugar Refining Company monopousea tne . manufacture and sale of refined sugar in the United States and controlled its nrlce. had combined with th other defendant to restrain the commerce In refined sugar In th several States and for eign' nations and to Incrsasa Its nrlee. The Trial Court (69 T. R., 106) found man ' The object In purchasing the Phil adelphia refineries wa to obtain i greater Influence or more perfeot Con trol over th business of refining and selling sugar in tnis country." wnen the case reachsd th United State Suprem Court, Chief Justice Fuller, who delivered th opinion of tne court, assumed that the transac tion did constitute a monopoly, but neio that It was a monopoly of the manufacture of necessary , of life He aaid at pag 17: "Th object was manifestly private gain in tne manufacture of a com modity, but not through the control of Interstate or foreign commerce. It i true that th bin alleged that the product of these refineries were sold and distributed among the several State, and that all th companies were engaged In trade or commerce with the several States and with for eign nations; but thia was no more than to say that trad and commerce served manuafcture to fulfill Its func tion. Sugar wa refined for sale, and sale war probably mad at Phlladel. pnia tor consumption, and undoubt edly for re-sal by th nrst purchas ers throughout Pennsylvania and oth er States, and refined suarar was also forwarded by the companies to other State for sale. Nevertheless. It doe not follow that an attempt to monop olis. or th actual monopoly of, th manuiaotur was aa artampt. Wheth er executory or consummated, t monopolise commerce, even though, in order to dlapeee of th product th instrumentality of commerce was necessarily Invoked. There waa noth ing la the proofs to indicate anv in. tenUon to put a restraint upon trade or commerce, and th fact, as w hav seen, that trad a might be Indirectly affected was not enough to entitle complainant to a decre. The subject matter of th sal was share of manufacturing stock and th relief sought was th surren der oi property which had already paaaea sua me suppression or tne al iged monopoly la manufacture by w imviwivn i mm siatus quo De fore th transfers: vet the act of Con gress only authorised th Circuit Courts to proceed by way of prevent ing and restraining violation of th act la respect of contracts, combi nations or conspiracies in restraint of interstate Jor International ' trad or commert. . . . .y It 1 clear , that . the eenrt ncnt. nised that the business of the defend. ants, though manufacturing, did inci dentally 7. gnd hot directly, embrace Interstate commerce. Jf this fact suf ficed to bring them within th fiher man act then almost every occupation may b regulated by Congress, . . The dissenting opinion of Harlan. J proceeded principally ' upon the theory that the combination waa ne cessarily one relating to the sal of goods, and raised every objection now relied upon by th government to the conclusion of the court , The majority of . the court thin that subsequent decisions, r especially Loews vs. Lawler. 208 U. 8.. 174, have Impliedly overruled the Knight case. In no subsequent decision has it been expressly qualified,, and tn the Loewe case. Chief Justice Fuller,' delivering the unanimous opinion of the court, said t page J78: . . : "We do not propose to comment oa LEFT C3 CERCCZmSTE? ' V , v FC3 TK1S L'3TEE3 : lira. A. Q, Tutoa, of Li Termor, Cat, wTltetr'TI picked tip from my door step on day a littlo book fa which I mob 'became; very tnnca , Interested. ITy little girl of five rear cf a- bad beca troubled Xorv.knstIaa with loss of appetite, extreme nerrousaetf tad soda fatigua. 6h wa all run down and laavr7dllcat condition. . mui utu book tu very aomprev hensl rely written, and told of th sew method of extractlig the medicinal el. menu of tha od' liver from the olV uminatlng th obnoxious ot which ig a hard for ehlHrea to taka, - tfust th tala.' said tor mjrBttla daughter,' had t Imjaadlately went for a botti of VtaoU U helped ber won derfully. , 8h bag gained rapidly In flesh, and strength, aad aba dost aot taka cold balf sa asUr.' x - l am axtremsly gratafnl for tbs good It bat doa bv aad I hop etber mother who bars weak, dellcaU or alllag children will bo benefited by my experience aad just Vino a trial" R. a JORDAN & CO, DrefpsU. CHARLOTTE such eases as United Btates vs. Knight, 1 U. a. 1: Hopkins va United Btatea, 171 U. g, T8, nd Anderson va. United Slates, in U. 8. 804, In which th undisputed facts showfd that th purpose of th agree ment wa not te obstruct or restrain Interstate commerce. Th object and Intent of th comblnatioa determined it legality.- x- It ha been suggested that the plaintiffs In the Loewe case must have been held by the court to have been directly engaged In Interstate commerce or otherwise the demurrer would not have been overruled; aad U tney wr directly engaged In inter state commerce the defendant in th Knight cas must haw been so also, th only difference being that one manufactured sugar and the other manufactured hata But one peed not be engaged in interstate com mere at all to get th benefit of th Sherman act. Section T authorise "any person who shall be injured In his business or property" by a viola tlon of th act to bring lust tuch a suit as Low brought. Although the piaintina, as manufacturers, might not have been engaged la business which would bring them within the operation of th Sherman act, still a combination of their parties to restrain a part of their business incidentally embraced In Interstate commerce might well bring that combination within the operation of th act Th decision in th Loewe cas was unan imous and expressly approving the Knight cas, proceeded apoa -the ground that the defendant's combi nation necesaartly and directly re strained the purchases and Miet of hats, between th plaintiff and citl sans of other state. Three of the justices who war of the majority in the Knight case concurred la the Loewe case and It can hardly be sup posed that they were overruling the jYnitfiu case Dy implication. I think It conclusive in this ease. If it be said this .conclusion would leave great evns without correotlon. the answer Is they may b corrected Dy, tn states or in the territories Dy tne united States, because they can prevent monopolies and combine tlons in restraint of trade within their own borders, whether carried on bv tneir own citisens or by others. Assuming, however, that ths Knight case does aot apply, ar th defend ant within th prohibition of th nrst section of th Sherman act? Un doubtedly th original American To bacco Company and th Continental Tobacoa Company tboth of which have ceased to exist), and the Ameri can anus Company and tha Amur! can Cigar Company war combine. ons oi inaepenaent concerns, but every combination la obviously not within the act. Th prohibition is against combinations who purpose is to restrain trade. Such a combina tion 1 within th act even If it fail ta ao so, wn,ii on who purpos is not ta restrain xraae is not within the act even ir it nncldentally doe so. In tention I of prim importance be cause th acts prohibited ar mad crimea bo far a th volum of trade in tobacco is concerned, the proof show that It has enormously increased irom tn raw material to the manufactured oroduct ainea tha combinations, and, so far as the price ui mo pruauci is coocemea, mat it ha not been increased to the con sumer and hat varied only as the price of .th raw material of leaf to bacco ha varied. The purpose of th combinations was not to restrain trad or prevent competition, although competition was incidentally nrevented. bnt. h Intelligent economies, to 'increase the volume and the croflt of the ! In which the parties were enraxed. No agreements were entered Into, a la many .of the decided eases, that operated oircciiy on interstate earn. mere through common carriers by maintains rates or preventing com petition, Ilka United State va. Trans Missouri jrreirni Association, lit rr. 8 J80; United States vs. Joint Trafflo Association, 171 0. , (01, and Northern Becurlti Co. va United Rates, 11 V. S- 187. e which lim ited output of manufacturer or reg ulated the prices at or th territory within which their etrtnne ahM a sold throughout th United ft Lata a anonira ip ana Bteei cev va United Btatea. 171 II. - ait i uA. vavajowrey, is u. B., Ig; win wo, vs.-unna Btatea. lit ir B., 1 76, or Which sought to prevent suy-interstaia eommore at all U th goods la question, as a Loewe va Lswler. 888 U. St. I74..r T . ' Th "cat of th fihawnae rvMnu K.vnnnT yv Anaerson, ivt u. g., 411 on ' wnicn - tn government roll, throws little light on -the on nndee consideration, it was aa appeal from th Suprem Court of the Teritory of uuuninL wo icn court xouna as a fact that the lease In aneatioB waa mad In aid of a conspiracy to sup press com pen Lion ana secure a mo nopoly. ' There is nothing to show whether the court was relytngnpoa the eomraoa. law. th trust act ef the Territory or the Sherman act.; The Suprem Court felt Itself confined to determining whether, there was evi dence to support the-conclusion of th Territorial teourt, : and. finding that there vraa, - affirmed th . decree, Mr. Justice McKsana satd, referring to tne triai court r . The court i further v said that It found 'ample authority in th record for that action' and following , th rule often reiterated' the court furth er said It must hold that where a reocrd contains some evidence to sup port th. finding of th trial court th judgment will not b disturbed. The ruling sustaining th power of the Shawnee Company to execute the lease 1 attacked by appellees, but we do not And It necessary to express a-n opinion - open It on - ac count ef the view we entertain of th ccond proposition. "In passing on the second prcpoj!- '..COTTON MAG:-2iIHSEiy Pickers Flat Cards Railway Heads ) t gad - t " j Frames : i' ' a: Hi vsAOHnzjnrj; it . - J TT tion th Supreme ; Court decided ad versely to the vlw taken by fa trial cour. -A Th court ?., thr8or - must either hav' conceded that there was not some evidence supporting th eon cducions of f aot of th trial court or must hav deemed the principles of law which ths trial court aphld wer not sustained by it conclusions of fact As oar view In th natur of things Is confined to -deurmlnlng whether th sous below rrd, It fol lows that our reviewing power under the circumstance Is . coincident with th authority to review possessed by th court- belbw 1 to - determining whether there was soma svldsncs sup porting ths findings and whether the facts found were ad squat to sustain th legal conclusions. Southern Lum ber Co. v. Ward. 101 U. 8., 118." -It remain to inquire whether th American Tobacco Company and Its controlled companies constitute a monopoly of or attempt to monopo lise a part of the foreign oommere betwsep the States under the eeo end sectioa of th Sherman act As this section prohibits a monopoly of or an attempt to monopolise any part ef such commerce, it cannot be literally construsd. 80 applied, the aot weald . prohibit commerce alto gether. The first and second sections must be read together, aad I thtaa mean th same thing, the second add ing nothing exoept to xtnd th pro hibition to Individuals who. without combination, monopolise or attempt to monopolism , It must bs understood to prohibit monopolies or attempt to monopolise brought about by th unlawful means contemplated In the first section, vl.. the purpos to re strain trad by preventing competi tion and preventing others from par tlclpaUng la it. Thme third section of the act bears out this construction because it doe not mention monopolies or attempts to monopolise In th etrrltorles or District of Columbia, where the Juris diction of the United States la su preme In all thlnja, and It can hardly b that Congress intended to declare innocent acts committed within them whlo hit pronounces crimes if com mitted in th States. . ; . Th purposes o fht defendants should not be mads to depend upon 2 tff alAtvail IllsaSPal'l AnAPMat WAV MJtU 1 or,ltter ,but mut b iolleeted from their conduct as a whols. A perusal of the record satlsfl. m that thlr purposes aad conduct wer aot Illegal or oppreiv. but that tney strovs a savsry business man strives, to In crease their business, and that their great success Is a natural growth re sulting from ': Industry, Intelligence and economy, ; doubtless largely helped by th volum of business done and ths great capital 'at com" mand. . For the reasons, without considering others discussed by coun sel, I think the, bill should bs dls nilssed. . , ' v ; . ' XSCI9IOir ATTRACTS AlTKIfTIOlT. Scop and Effect Upon All Classes of Industrial Combinations Engaged m . fmer-Stato Trade la Regarded as ' Important Appeal to th Supreme . vour vnaer wmj. I. New York,' Nov. 14. Ths sweeping character of th recent decision of th : United- State Circuit - Court In declarlsg tha American Tobacco Com pany to be s, comblnatioa In restraint of trade, 'la attracUag widespread at tention, particularly for tta scop and -effect upon ' all classes of Industrial combination - engaged in inter-State traffic. An appeal to - th United Btates Suprra Court Is bahif -pr-pard,- Th full . txt of th deeisioa -00-ctos, in tb language -ct th Judge, th gradual development of judicial Interpretation of tb taw tu to the present tim, Judge Cox, on of the concurring judges, staung that ' since th Knight ease ( against the Sugar Reflneries), the tendency has been constantly towards, a wider scop : of th atattttaa.".'-'. ,K,v- -. v-- -,-.- Aa examination . of th. numerous decisions sine th Knight ease leads to' the conclusion. .Judt Cox -say. that ther has been a general Undency toward a broader and mor . liberal construction of th statute. Judg Laeembe. ta hi' tnalorlty opinion,, defines tb statute of the law 10-aar in oarx as ioiiowe: "Br insenaibi degrees, under th operation of many' causes, businesa, manufacturing and trading alike, has more and mor developed a tendency towards larger aad larger aggrega tions of 'capital and more extensive combinations of Individual . enter prise. It la contended that, under existing conditions, in that way only can production o ; increased ana cheapened, new markets opened and developed, stability . !a reasonable prices secured and industrial progress assured.'; ' But - every aggregation of Individuals or ' corporations, formerly independent, immediately - upon 'Its formation terminate aa eristlng com petition r, whether, or not some other competition may subsequently arise. 'The act, as above construed., pro hibits every contract or-combination In restraint lof competition. - What benets hav com from this combina tion, or: from others complained of. It Is aot material to Inquire, nor need subsequent businee methods be con sidered, nor the effects, on production or pricea- . s - . r-. Judge No yea who concurred with Judge Lacombe, say: . -- - It u of much importance to manv people at tn present time whether the defendant have entered Into an unlawful combination. It ta of the most momentous importance to all th people for all th time whether th national government has power to reach inauatnai combination deal ing across Stat line. All must agree that conditions may arise in the future .requiring legislative action which hell be both uniform- and effective.. , , . An rarry tJeciefon in the Etirreme Court is anticipated because of the provision of the Fe4rel law . ad- vanclcg appeal In such casea ATITjOTTB. i XTOSTa OASOLETA S ; '"'1 11 'tir'l niTi"-'--" ' ' Southern Railway t.followlng schedule figures pub llsbed only as lnformatlen. aad ar Ml tluaraatMd. Sept. Tta, UQkt 1: a. m., No, S8. dally, for Washlngts's sad points .Nartn. . ..Pulhna '. drswiag room sleepers te NW lrs 79y eae to Washingtea. ' , , d8:88 a. No. aV dally, for ' Columbia, Saraaaah and Jacksonville. r Pullmaa drawing room slsepers ta ' August aa Je Xsjr echi to Vaeksoa. an'loil'piin1' i r.'iu'chamd .iHj-H llr. r Washington ikijr. , 1. "7la-iy eoaene Charlotte RjjJhf0: ?"msa sleeper AtiaaU and"locA, D'- fi'&&nl:ffitS?f?i r. j i"i ii,w ana iocj f0"-.; Connec5 st Meeresvlile lor Win- iiiii atatesviu loc Ash. 1 t:il 'a.''', m v i,''i.ii'--'""'1'''i--i i iJKfJA," Charlotte to Atlanta, Stone n!7i , pwiui en 'rout. Jz: ?-nV.,?-i dally, tor Washmg Fni Aortn, Puhmaa arewing tTw.MU tark- DfT sowh w'Tsh,gton. pining ear rvtu. Salem, Soaaek and loeal :.. m.. No. 87. dallT. : .uX: -mr.r' ?u? fo Wlastaa. r-SLA"?' M ,.delly.irew.ToA and , , 'mica. - uiavsif reoea Nrw,lnf sjrssf ssx iw rerk "to New Orleans, Drawing reem eloper. New Tw elanta?BoSi Pullmaa trln.wtHnlng eer ervteT snd local ccln'jr . T- M p. m., Na IT. dsfly xcant lunda for Seneca and loeal points aaaoay. andlocrpom&. U "" L mfctzLUn9' J!en sxoept Sunday ' a iiexi iaa.wtjsasrall kV2 R,.m, Kos Wtw Tor' and Prewlng room 'wB a. fnn rfeV. M Amtfm idWea-7 A A1a " ... KLni't'l- lm"J drawta room T't,' Mew Orleaaa New WaTwnitoa iB??.rie5! iS5.-.K''4'st mail, puihnaa 'W. Raleigh te Atlanta.. " -i. stuping oar rMervatloe esd detail Information can ; be obtained at No Vacation. Enter Air Time.' Individual Instruction, ' ; Shorthand, feook-Keeping, : Telegraphy and English 1 y taught by eaerts. A school k-a. reputation v Tfc-' oldest, largest and best equipped business college in tW ) , : . . v - Charlotte, W. 0.,-- Presbyterian College for Voman ' - '.V . CHAELOTTE. It 0. i " The 51st session ot thir, old and treU established school Trill begin; September 3d, 1903. v 4fGWithout,linaking'lloud.cl th; work of one-half century. ; For catalogs address' EEV. JT. E. BBIDOE3, President ."; Booms fl.M pep day and up. Rooms with prlvata : taUt $3.00 per ; X-i-. ri-.v ''" - ', day and ap. '. :...K . - beVi-yVT' Prloog Roasonabla, . .r.?:: ' - . 1M ELEGANT BOOMS. v'--' . '' .' v . : '. 7 FR1TATB BATHS, . Located In th heart of Charlotte convenient to railroad station, street cars and th busin and shopping centre. , Cater to . hlgh- '' class commercial nd tourist trad. - - . 3 ;,, Tn ;-S-irVfti.;. ': '. EDGAIt B. MOOItE, lropriet, ;;' Standard' Ice ... J : r? . - aWieiai4 J - tad' - , ' ." ' t . -' '' ' r, .. 2-. ' A - ' U Cpooha r Uokt offtc. n. 11 South Trroa trt v k.i.G H. ACKIBT, ''..' ' Vie Pres. and Oe. Mg4 , -8. H. HATtDWJCK, P. T, It, . , -W, . TATLOB. O P. A, ' , S - - It I VKJtNON, T, P. A, - - 4 - , ; r ( Charlotte, VL 0. - SEABOMD '- turd ."fhee arrivais aad departures as won M ' . th time and conaeetiba with ether eoov. -senlea, are give only as intonaaUea sad are not guaranteed- - Wrect line t th prlndpar IU North, East. South and Southwest. Sehadul ' Uklng effect Sept. Uth, 1M4, subject' t hang wlthsat notion ' 7 , , -Ticket lot paasas en n trains sr v;i Old by this company end accepted by the 1 paaawngsr with th understanding that this company will not be reapunalbl fof ; . failure te run Its trains on sehedul time --' or for any sueh delay a may be Incident o uir priioa, i;ar u eserotaed te -' ire wc uni esnneetmg lines, out tu company is not responslbi lee error or om lesions , :, rains feav Charlette is fotlowsr' ' ' S. '-iJ'j m. an., lor jnonre. . amlet and , WllmlDStoBi, eoaneetlna el ' onroe With 18 lor Atleeta, Blrmlnghanl f and th louthwect; with It (or Kalelch. ' ' Weldon and Portsmouth, with M at Ham. -' ' let for Raleigh, Bichmend, WMhlnatoa. 1 , New Trtt - ..t--v! , , Ne.ixt.dsny at a.--m.. r Utv 1 - -eolnton. Shelby and Rutherfbretoa. No. H dally, at l.l p. mH lor afenre. -Hamlet, Wilmington, and ail local point - 7 eofiaecttng at Hamlet with for Colum- bla, Savaanah and an Florida pctnta. and " N 84 for Relet rh. luahnMadaahus? -to nd New Torit . . . . TnoTimC dally. : m.. for Men, ' eenneetlng with 81 for Atlanta Bit-mint-ham and. the Southwest with train 8 at Hamlet ty?-" Washington ni New Terk. with W. at Monro tor AaU i elah, fortm-uth and Norfolk, " T j trains arrive tn Charlotte a IbTIow. ' ' No- ,f- - day. frent points . North nd South.' - - , No. j, dallr. 1J-8J s. at, from Trnffilng, toi and all loeal points. , -Ne. in. dally, p. n.. frem Jtather- ; fnrdten. Shelby, IJneolnton sad C A N. W tBlrway polnta j. . ' ; . Ma . li88 p. m,, daily, frem trrimlnv. ' ton, ' Hamlet, end Monroe; also from ; ? " point st wortn snq noatnwest. so.' ' nenting, at Hamlet nd Uonroa , raBneettena are made at HamfaC wetft throua-h ireln for pjinU North. Soath are eenawm, . wiwd an compeee of - vestibule day. eoehs bet wen ports- mouth and Atlanta snd Washington and : ; , Jaeksowvllla end eleeptng eciv between Jersey City, BlrBilnehem d Memphis. --'V " ed Jersey ci w an JnctiMTlUa ., Cai -: x eer en all throwgh train a , mr ini u inning.,, iviwi.ui a ,.,r .y. tlon r Seaboarif descrtpttv lltiratur apply "ewi mwwnir or- eearesa; 1 . JAVril KBR, js.. c p. a ' tt 81 wy a Hotel. Chartotta IC- O.' ,'v- ,a. .r'' : ssasja .v m or Ealeigh, IT. 0.; . riZ2l Co. C. C D. rcc 3 Cc:l - it
The Charlotte Observer (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 16, 1908, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75