221 U.S. 106 | SCOTUS | 1910
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was commenced on July 19, 1907, by the United States, to prevent the continuance of alleged violations of the first and second sections of the Anti-trust Act of July 2, 1890. The defendants were twenty-nine individuals, named in the margin,
The ground of complaint against the American Tobacco Company rested not alone upon the nature and character of that corporation and the power which it exerted directly over the five accessory corporations and some of the subsidiary corporations by stock ownership in such corporations, but also upon the control which it exercised over the subsidiary companies by virtue of stock held in said companies by the accessory companies by stock ownership in which the; American Tobacco Company exerted its power of control. The accessory companies were impleaded either because of their nature and character or because of the power exertéd over them through stock, ownership by the American Tobacco Company and also because of the power which they in turn exerted by stock ownership over the subsidiary corporations, and finally the subsidiary corporations were impleaded either because of their nature or because of the control to which they viere subjected in and by virtue of the stock ownership above' stated. . We append in the margin a statement showing
As we shall have occasion hereafter in referring to mat
The prayer of the bill was as follows:
“Wherefore petitioner prays:
*149 “1. That the contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade and commerce among the States and with foreign nations, together with the attempts to monopolize and the monopolies of the same hereinbefore described be declared illegal and in violation of the act of Congress passed July 2, 1890, and subsequent acts, and that , they be prevented and restrained by proper orders of the court.
“2. That the agreements, contracts, combinations, and conspiracies entered into by the defendants on or about September 27,1902, and thereafter, and-evidenced among other things by the two written agreements of that date, Exhibits 1 and 2 hereto, be declared illegal, and that injunctions issue restraining and prohibiting defendants from doing anything in pursuance of of in furtherance of the same within the jurisdiction of the United States.
“3. That the Imperial Tobacco Company, its officers,agents, and servants be enjoined .from engaging in interstate or foreign trade and commerce within the jurisdiction of-the United States until it shall cease to observe or act' in pursuance of said agreements, contracts, combinations,, and conspiracies ehtered into by it and other defendants on or about September 27, 1902, and thereafter, and evidenced among other things by the contracts of that date, Exhibits 1 and 2 hereto.
"4. That the British-American Tobacco Company be adjudged an unlawful instrumentality created solely for carrying into effect the objects and purposes of said, contract, combination, and conspiracy entered into on or about September 27, 1902, and thereafter, and that it be enjoined from engaging in interstate or foreign trade and commerce within the jurisdiction of the United States.
“5. That the court adjudge the American Tobacco Company, -the American Snuff Company, the American Cigar Company, the American Stogie Company, the Mac-Andrews & Forbes Company, and the Conley Foil Company is each a combination in restraint of interstate and*150 foreign trade and commerce; and that each has attempted and is attempting to monopolize, is- in combination and conspiracy, with other persons and corporations to monopolize, and has monopolized part of the trade and commerce among the several States and with foreign nations; and order and decree that éach one of them be restrained from engaging in interstate or foreign commerce, or, if the court should be of opinion that the public interests will be better subserved thereby, that receivers be!) appointed to.take possession of all the property, assets, busiriéss, and affairs of said defendants and wind up the same, and otherwise take such course in regard thereto as will bring about conditions in trade and commerce among the States and with foreign nations in harmony with law.
. “6. That the holding of stock by one of the defendant corporations in another under the circumstances shown be declared illegal, and that each of them be enjoined from continuing to hold or own such shares in another and from exercising any right in; connection therewith.'
. “7. That defendants, each and all, be enjoinedfrom continuing to carry out the purposes of thé above-described contracts, combinations, conspiracies, and attempts to monopolize by the means herein described, or by any other, and be.required to desist and withdraw from all connection with the same.
‘‘8. That each of the defendant's be enjoined from purchasing leaf tobacco or from .selling and distributing its manufactured output as a part of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in conjunction.or combination with any othér defendant, and from taking part-or being interested. in any agreement of combination intended tó destroy competition among them in reference to such purchases or sales.
■ “9. .That petitioner have such other, further ^nd general relief,as may be proper/’
As to the answers, it ¡Suffices to say that all the individual '
After the taking of much téstimony before a special examiner, the -case was heard before a court consisting of four judges, constituted under the expediting act of February 11,1903. In deciding the case in favor of the Government each of the four judges delivered an opinion (164 Fed. Rep. 700). A final decree was entered on December 15, 1908;. The petition was dismissed as to the English corporations, three of the subsidiary corporations, the United Cigar Stores Company and all the individual, defendants. It was decreed that the defendants other thaif those against whom'the petition was dismissed, had theretofore entered into and were parties to combinations in restraint of trade, etc., in violation of the Anti-trust Act and said defendants and each of them, their officers, agents, etc., were restrained and enjoined “from directly or indirectly doing any act or thing whatsoever in furtherance of the objects and purposes of said combinations and from continuing as partiés thereto.” It specifically found that each of the defendants, “The American Tobacco Company, American Snuff Company, American Cigar Company, American Stogie Company, and Mac Andrews & Forbes Company constitutes and is itself a combination in violation of the said Act of Congress.” The corporations thus named, their officers, etc., were next restrained
“Wherefore each and all of defendants, The-American Tobacco Company, the American Snuff Company, the American Cigar Company, P. Lorillard Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Company and Conley Foil Company, their officers, directors, agents, servants and employés are hereby restrained and enjoined from acquiring by conveyance or otherwise, the plant or business of any such corporation wherein any one of them now holds or owns stock; and each and all of said defendant corporations so holding stock in other corporations as above specified, their officers, directors, agents, servants and employés, are further enjoined from voting or attempting to vote said stock at any meeting of the stockholders of the corporation issuing the same and from exercising or attempting to exercise any control, direction, supervision or influence whatsoever over the acts and doings of such corporation. And it is further ordered and decreed that each and every of the defendant corporations the stock of which is held by any other defendant corporation as hereinbefore shown, their officers, directors, servants and agents, be and they are hereby respectively and collectively restrained and enjoined from permitting the stock so held to be voted by any other de*153 fendant holding or claiming to own the same or by its attorneys or agents at any corporate election for directors or officers and from permitting or suffering any other defendant corporation claiming to own or hold stock therein, or its officers or agents, to exercise any control whatsoever over its corporate acts.”
Judgment for costs was given in favor of thé petitioner and against the defendants as to whom the petition had not been dismissed, except the R. P. Richardson, Jr., & Company, a corporation which had consented to the decree. The decree also contained a provision that the defendants or any of them should not be prevented “from the institution, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding to prevent or restrain the infringement of a trade-mark used in interstate commerce or otherwise assert or defend a claim.to any property or rights.” In the évent of a taking of an appeal to this court, the decree provided that the injunction which it directed “shall be suspended during the pendency of such appeal.”
The United States appealed, as did also the «various defendants against whom the decree was entered. For the Government it is contendéd: 1. That the petition should not have been dismissed as to the individual defendants. 2. That it should not have been dismissed as to the two foreign corporations — the Imperial Tobacco Company and the British-American Tobacco Company and the domestic corporations controlled by the latter, and that, on the contrary, the decree should have commanded the observance of the Anti-trust Act by the foreign corporations so far as their dealings in the United States were concerned, and should have restrained those companies from doing any act in the United States in violation of the Antitrust Act, whether or not the right to do said acts was asserted to have arisen pursuant to the contracts made outside of or within the United States. 3. The petition should not have been dismissed as to "the United Cigar • Stores
The defendants, by their assignments of error, complain because the petition was not dismissed as to all, and more specifically, (a) because they were adjudged parties to a combination in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce, and enjoined accordingly; (b) because certain defendant corporations holding shares in others were enjoined from voting them or exercising control over the issuing company, and the latter from permitting this; and (c) because the American Tobacco Company, American
' The elaborate arguments made by both sides at bar present in many forms of statement the conflicting contentions resulting from the nature and character of the suit and the defense thereto, the decree of the lower court and the propositions assigned as error to which we have just referred. In so far as all or any'of these contentions, as many of them in fact do, involve a conflict as to the application and effect of §§ 1 and 2 of the Anti-trust Act, their consideration has been greatly simplified by the analysis and review of that act and the construction affixed to the sections in question in the case of Standard Oil Company v. United States, quite récently decided, ante, p. 1. In so far as the contentions relate to the disputed propositions, of fact, we think from the view which we take of the case they need not be referred to, since in our opinion the case can be disposed of by considering only those facts which are indisputable and by applying to the inferences, properly deducible from such facts the meaning and effect of the law as expounded in accordance with the previous decisions of this court.
We shall divide our investigation of the case into three subjects: First, the undisputed facts; second, the meaning of the Anti-trust Act and its application as correctly construed to the ultimate conclusions of fact deducible from the proof; third, the remedies to be applied.
First. Undisputed facts.
The matters to be considered under this heading we think can best be made clear by stating the merest outline of the condition of the tobacco industry prior to what is asserted to have been the initial movement in the combination which the suit assails and in the light so afforded to briefly recite the history of the assailed acts and con
Summarizing in the broadest way the conditions which obtained prior to 1890, as to the production, manufacture and distribution of tobacco, the following general facts are adequate to portray the situation.'
Tobacco was grown in many sections of the country having diversity of soil and climate and therefore was subject to various vicissitudes resulting from the places of production and consequently varied in quality. The great diversity of use to which tobacco was applied in manufacturing caused it to be that there was a demand for all the various qualities. The demand for all qualities was not local, but widespread, extending as well to domestic as to foreign trade, and, therefore, all the products were marketed under competitive conditions of a peculiarly advantageous nature. The- manufacture of the product in this country in various forms was successfully carried on by many individuals- or Concerns scattered throughout the country, a larger number perhaps of the manufacturers being in the vicinage of production and others being advantageously situated in or near the principal markets of distribution.
Before January, 1890, five distinct concerns — Allen & Ginter, with factory at Richmond, Va.; W. Duke, Sons & Co., with factories at Durham, North Carolina, and New York City; Kinney Tobacco Company, with factory at New York City; W. S. Kimball & Company, with factory at Rochester, New York; Goodwin & Company, with factory at Brooklyn, New York — manufactured, distributed and sold in the United States and abroad 95 per cent of all the domestic cigarette and less than 8 per cent
There is a charge that the valuation at which, the respective properties were capitalized in the new corporation was enormously in excess of their actual value. We, however, put that subject aside, since we propose only to deal with facts which are not in controversy.
.Shortly after the formation of the new corporation -the Goodwin & Co. factory was closed, and the directors ordered “that the manufacture of all tobacco cigarettes be concentrated at Richmond.” The new' corporation in 1890, the first year of its operation, manufactured about two and one half billion cigarettes, that is, about 96 or 97 per cent of the total domestic output, and about five and- one-half million pounds of smoking tobacco out
In a little over a year after the organization of the company it increased its capital stock by ten million dollars. The purpose of this increase is inferable from the considerations which we now state.
There was a firm known as Pfingst, Doerhoefer & Co., consisting of a number of partners, who had been long and successfully carrying on the business of manufacturing plug tobacco in Louisville, Kentucky, and distributing it through the channels of interstate commerce. In January, 1891, this firm was converted into a corporation known as the National Tobacco Works, having a capital stock of $400,000 all of which was issued to the partners. Almost immediately thereafter, in the month of February, the American Tobacco Company became the purchaser of all the capital stock of the new corporation, paying $600,000 cash and $1,200,000 in stock of the American Tobacco Company. The members of the previously existing firm bound themselves by contract with the American Tobacco Company to enter its service and manage the business and property sold, and each tether agreed that for ten years he would not engage in carrying on, directly or indirectly, or permit or suffer the use of his name in connection with the carrying on of the tobacco business in any form.
In April following, the American Ti^bacco Company bought out the business of Philip Whitlock, of Richmond, Virginia, who was engaged in the manufacture of cheroots and cigars, and with the exclusive right to use the name of Whitlock. The consideration for this purchase was $300,000, and Whitlock agreed to become an employé of the American Tobacco Company for a number of years and not to engage for twenty years in the tobacco business.
In the month of April the American Tobacco Company also acquired the business of Marburg Brothers, a well-known firm located at Baltimore, Maryland, and engaged
Again, in the same month, the American Tobacco Company bought out a tobacco firm of old standing, also located in Baltimore, known as G. W. Gail & Ax, engaged principally, in manufacturing and selling smoking tobacco, buying with the business’ the exclusive right to use the name of the firm or the partners, and the members of the firm agreed not to engage in the tobacco business for a specified period. The consideration for this purchase was $77,582.66 in cash and stock to the amount of $1,760,000. The plant was abandoned soon after; ..
The result of these purchases wa;s manifested at once in the product of the company for the year 1891, as will appear from a note in the margin.
Referring to the occurrences of the year 1891, as in all
The corporations which were combined for the purpose of forming the ■ American Tobacco Company produced a very small portion of plug tobacco. That an increase in this direction was contemplated is manifested by the almost immediate increase of the stock and its use for the purpose of acquiring, as we have indicated, in 1891 and 1892, the ownership and control of concerns manufacturing plug tobacco and the consequent increase in that branch of production. There is no dispute that as early as 1893 the president of the American Tobacco Company, by authority of the corporation, approached leading manufacturers of plug tobacco and sought to bring about a combination of the plug tobacco interests, and upon the faihire to accomplish this, ruinous competition, by lowering the price of plug below its cost, ensued. As a result of this warfare, which continued until 1898, the American Tobacco Company sustained severe losses aggregating more than four millions of dollars. The warfare produced its natural result, not only because the company acquired
The American Tobacco Company also conveyed to this corporation, at large valuations, the assets, brands, real estate and good will pertaining to its plug tobacco business, including the National Tobacco' Works, the James G. Butler Tobacco Co., Drummond Tobacco Company, and Brown Tobacco Co., receiving as consideration $30,274,200 of stock (one-half common and one-half preferred), $300,000 cash, and an additional sum for losses sustained in the plug business during 1898, $840,035. Mr. Duke, the president of the American Tobacco Company, also became president of “the. Continental Company.
Under the preliminary agreement which was. made looking to the formation of the Continental Tobacco
Following the organization of the Continental Tobacco Company the American Tobacco Company increased its •capital stock from thirty-five millions of dollars to seventy millions of dollars, and declared a stock dividend of one hundred per cent on its common stock, that is, a stock dividend of $21,060,000.
As the facts just stated bring us to the end of the first period which at the outset we stated it was our purpose to review, it is" wgU briefly , to point out the increase in the power and control .of the American Tobacco Com-: pany and the extension of its activities to all forms of tobacco products which had been accomplished just prior to the organization of the Continental Tobacco Company. Nothing could show it more clearly than the following: At the end of the time the company was manufacturing eighty-six per cent or' thereabouts of all the cigarettes produced in the United States, above twenty-six per cent of all the smoking tobacco, more than twenty-two per cent of all plug tobacco, fifty-one per cent of all little cigars, six per cent each of all snuff and fine cut tobacco, and over two per cent of all cigars and cheroots.
A brief reference to the occurrences of the second period, that is, from and. after the organization of the Continental Tpbacco Company up to the time of the bringing of this
In the year 1899 and thereafter either the American or the Continental company, for cash or stock, at an aggregate cost of fifty millions of dollars ($50,000,000), bought and closed up some thirty competing corporations and partnerships theretofore engaged in interstate and foreign commerce as manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of tobacco and related commodities, the interested parties covenanting not to engage in the business. Likewise the
The plants thus acquired were operated until the merger in 1904, to which we shall hereafter refer, as a part of the general system of the American and Continental companies. The power resulting from and the purpose contemplated in making these acquisitions by the companies just referred to, however, may not be measured by considering alone the business of- the company directly acquired, since some of those companies were made the vehicles as representing the American or Continental company for acquiring and holding the stock of other and competing companies, thus amplifying the power resulting from the acquisitions directly made by the American or Continental company, without' ostensibly doing so. It is besides undisputed that in many instances the ac-' quired corporations-with the subsidiary companies over which they had coátrol through stock ownership were carried on ostensibly as independent concerns disconnected
(1). The American Snuff Company.
As we have seen, the American Tobacco Company at the commencement of the first period produced a very small quantity of snuff. Its capacity, however, in that regard was augmented owing particularly to the formation of the Continental Tobacco Company and the acquisition of the Lorillard Company, by which it came to be a serious factor as a snuff producer. There shortly ensued an aggressive competition in the snuff business between the American Tobacco Company, with the force acquired from the vantage ground resulting from the dominancy of its expanded organization, and others in the trade operating independently of that organization. The result was identical with that which had previously arisen from like conditions in the past.
In March, 1900, there was organized in New Jersey a corporation known as The Ameriéan Snuff Company, with a capital of $25,000,000, one-half preferred and one-half cpmmon, which took over the snuff business of the P. Lorillard Company, Continental Tobacco Company and The American Tobacco Company, with that of a large competitor, viz: The Atlantic Snuff Co. The stock of the new company was thus apportioned: Atlantic Snuff Company, preferred, $7,500,000, common, $25,000,000-; P. Lorillard Company, preferred, $1,124,700, common, $3,459,400; The American Tobacco Compány, preferred, $1,177,800, common, $3,227,500; Continental Tobacco Company, preferred, $197,500, common, $813,100. The stock issued to Continental Tobacco Company and the
Among the assets transferred by the Atlantic Snuff Company to American Snuff Company were all the shares ($600,000) of W. E. Garrett & Sons, Inc., then and now one of the oldest and very largest producers of snuff, for a long time and still engaged at Yorkland, Del., in interstate and foreign commerce in tobacco and its products, and which controlled through stock ownership the Southern Snuff Company, Memphis, Tenn.; Dental Snuff Company, Lynchburg, Va., and Stewart-Ralph Snuff Company, Clarksville, Tenn. The separate existence of W. E. Garrett & Sons, Inc., has been preserved and its business conducted under the corporate name. In March, 1900, the American Snuff Company acquired all the shares of George W. Helme Company, one of the oldest and largest producers of snuff and actively engaged at Helmetta, N. J., in interstate and foreign commerce in competition with defendants, by issuing in exchange therefor $2,000,000 preferred stock and $1,000,000 common; and it thereafter took a conveyance of all assets of the acquired company and now operates the plant under its own name.
As a result of the transactions just stated it came to pass that the American Tobacco Company, which had at the end of the first period only a very small percentage of the snuff manufacturing business, came virtually to have the dominant control as a manufacturer of that product.
2. Conley Foil Company — manufacturers of tinfoil, an essential for packing tobacco products.
In December, 1899, the American Tobacco Company secured control of the business of John Conley & Sons, a
3. American Cigar Company.
Prior to 1901 the American and Continental tobacco companies' manufactured, sold, and distributed cigars, stogies, and cheroots. In the year stated the companies determined to engage in the business upon a larger scale. Under agreement with Powell, Smith & Company, large manufacturers and dealers in cigars, they caused the incorporation in New Jersey of the American Cigar Company "for trading and manufactúring,” etc., to which all three conveyed their said business, and it has since carried on the same. The American and Continental companies each acquired 46*4 per cent of the shares, and Powell, Smith & Company 7 per cent; the original capitalization was $10,000,000 (afterwards $20,000,000), and more than three-fourths is owned by the former. The Cigar Company acquired many competitors (partnerships and corporations) engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, taking from the parties covenants against engaging in the tobacco business; and it has also procured the organization of controlled corporations which have acquired competing manufacturers, jobbers and. distributors in the United States) Cuba and Porto Rico. It manufactures, sells and distributes a considerable per centage of domestic cigars; is the dominating factor in the tobacco business,
4. The MacAndrews & Forbes Company — manufacturers' of licorice.
There is no question that licorice paste is an essential ingredient- in the manufacture of plug tobacco, and that one who is debarred from obtaining such paste would therefore be unable to engage in or carry on the manufacture of such product. The control over this article was thus secured: In May, 1902, the Continental-Company secured control.of MacAndrews & Forbes Co. of Newark,' New Jersey, and organized “for trading and manufactur-r ing” a corporation known as the MacAndrews & Forbes Co., with a capital of $7,000,000, $4,000,000 preferred' and $3,000,000 common, which took ■ over - the business of MacAndrews & Forbes and another large competitor. The Continental Company acquired two-thirds of the common stock by agreeing to' purchase its supply of pasté from the new company. The American Tobacco'Company, at the time of the filing the bill, was the owner of $2,112,900 of the common stock and .$750,000 preferred. By various .purchases and agreements the MacAndrews & Forbes Company acquired, substantially, the business of. all competitors. Thus, in June, 1902, it purchased the business of the Stamford Mfgl Co., of Stamford, Connecticut, and incorporated the National Licorice Company, which acquired.the business of Young & -Smylie and F. B. & V. P. Scudder, and the National Company agreed with MacAndrews & Forbes not to produce licorice, for tobacco manufacturers. In 1906 all the stock in the J. S. Young Company ($1,800,000), which had been.organized to take over the business of the J. S. Young Co. of Baltimore, Md., was acquired by the MacAndrews & Forbes Co. The MacAndrews & Forbes Co. use in excess
5. American Stogie Company.
In May, 1903, the American Cigar Company and the American and Continental Tobacco Companies' caused .the American Stogie Company to be incorporated in New Jersey, with $11,979,000 capital, which immediately took over the stogie and tobie business of the companies named, in exchange for $8,206,275 stock and then in the usual ways acquired the business of others in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of such products, with covenants not to compete. It acqúired in exchange for $3,647,725 stock all shares of United States Cigar Company (which had previously acquired and owned the business of important competitors) and subsequently took the conveyance of the plant and assets. The majority shares always have been' held by defendant, the American Cigar Company.
As we think the legitimate inferences deducible from the undisputed facts which we have thus stated will be sufficient to dispose of the controversy, we do not deem it necessary to expand this statement so as to cause it to embracé. a recital of the undisputed facts concerning the entry of the. American Tobacco Company into the retail tobacco trade through the acquisition of a controlling interest in the stock of what is known as’ the United Cigar Stores Company, as well as to some other subjects .which for the sake of brevity we likewise pass over, , in order to come at once to a statement concerning the foreign companies,
The English Companies.
In September, 1901, the American Tobacco Co. purchased for $5,347,000 a Liverpool (Eng.) corporation, known as Ogden’s Limited, there engaged in manufacturing and distributing tobacco products. A trade conflict, which at once ensued caused many of the English manufacturers to combine into an incorporation known as the
In September, 1902, the Imperial and the American companies entered into contracts (executed in England) stipulating that the former should limit its business to the United Kingdom, except purchasing leaf in the United States (it buys 54,000,000 pounds annually); that the American companies should limit their business to the United States, its dependencies and Cuba; and that the British-American Tobacco Company, with capital of 6,000,000 pounds sterling, apportioned between them, should be organized, take over the export business of both, and operate in other countries, etc. This arrangement, was immediately put into effect, and has been observed.
The Imperial Company holds one-third and the American Company two-thirds of the capital stock of the British-American Tobacco Company, Limited. The latter company maintains a branch office in New York City and,the vice-president of the American Tobacco Company is a principal officer. This company uses large quantities of domestic leaf, partly exported to various plants abroad and about half manufactured here and then exported. By agreement, all this is purchased through the American Tobacco Company. In addition to many plants abroad it has warehouses in various States and plants at Peters-burg, Va., and Durham, N. C., where tobacco is manufactured and then exported.
The purchase of necessary leaf tobacco in the United States by the Imperial Company is now made through a resident general agent and is exported as a part of foreign commerce.
Not to break the continuity of the narrative of facts we
The Consolidated Tobacco Co.
In June, 1901, parties largely interested in the American and Continental companies caused the incorporation in New Jersey of the Consolidated Tobacco Company, capital $30,000,000 (afterwards $40,000,000), with broad powers and perpetual' existence; to do business throughout the world, and to guarantee securities of other companies, etc. A majority of shares was taken by a few individuals connected with the old concerns: A. N. Brady, J. B. Duke, .A. H. Payne, Thomas Ryan, W. C. Whitney, and P. A. B. Widener. J. B. Duke, president of both the old companies, became president of the Consolidated. Largely in exchange for bonds the new company acquired substantially all the shares of common stock of the old ones. Its business, of holding and financing, was continued until 1904, when, with. the American and Continental companies, it was merged into the present American Tobacco Company.
By proceedings in New Jersey, October, 1904, the (old) American Tobacco Company, Continental Tobacco Company and Consolidated Tobacco Company were merged into one corporation, under the name of The American Tobacco Company, the principal defendant here. The ■merged company, with perpetual existence, was capitalized at $180,000,000 ($80,000,000 preferred, ordinarily without power to vote).
The powers conferred by the charter are stated in the ■ margin.
The record indisputably discloses that after this merger the same methods which were used from the beginning continued to be employed. Thus, it is beyond dispute: First, that since the organization of the new American Tobacco Company that company has acquired four large tobacco concerns, that restrictive, covenants against engaging in the tobacco business were taken from the sellers, and that the plants were not continued in operation but
Thus reaching the end of the second period and coming to the time of the bringing of the suit, brevity prevents us from stopping to portray the difference between the condition in 1890 when the (old) American Tobacco Company was organized by the consolidation of five competing cigarette concerns and that which existed at the commencement of the suit. That- situation and the vast power which the principal and accessory corporate defendants and the small number of individuals who own a majority of the common stock of the new American Tobacco Company exert over the marketing of tobacco as a raw product, its manufacture, its marketing when manufactured, and its consequent movement in the channels of interstate commerce indeed relatively over foreign commerce, and the commerce of the whole world, in the raw and manufactured products stand out in such bold relief from the undisputed facts which have been stated as to lead us to pass at once to the second fundamental proposition which we are required to consider. That is, the construction of the Anti-trust Act and the application of the act as rightly construed to the situation as proven in consequence of having determined the ultimate and finah inferences properly deducible from the undisputed faej& which we have stated.
The construction and application of the Anti-trust Act.
If the Anti-trust Act is applicable to the entire situation here presented and is adequate to afford complete relief for the evils which the United States insists that situation presents it can only be because that law will be given a
The obscurity and resulting uncertainty however, is now but an abstraction because it has been removed by the consideration which we have given quite recently to. the construction of the Anti-trust Act in the Standard Oil Case. In that case it was held, without departing from
Coming then to apply to the case before us the act as "interpreted in the Standard Oil and previous cases, all the difficulties suggested by the mere form in which the assailed transactions are clothed become óf no moment. This follows because although it was held in the Standard
Considering then the undisputed facts which we have previously stated, it remains only to determine whether they establish that the acts, contracts, agreements, combinations, etc., which were assailed were of such an unusual and wrongful character as to bring them within the prohibitions of the law. , That they were, in our opinion, so overwhelmingly results from the undisputed facts that it seems only necessary to refer to the facts as we have stated them to demonstrate the correctness of this conclusion. Indeed, the history of the combination is' so replete with the doing of acts which it was the obvious purpose of the statute to forbid, so demonstrative of the existence from the beginning of a purpose to acquire dominion and control of the tobacco trade, not by the mere exertion of the ordinary right to contract and to trade, but by methods devised in order to monopolize the trade by driving competitors out of business, which were ruthlessly carried out upon the assumption that to work upon
In stating summarily, as we have done, the conclusions which,' in our opinion, are plainly deducible from the undisputed facts, we have not paused to givé the reasons why we consider, after great consideration, that the elaborate arguments advanced to affix a different complexion to the case are wholly devoid of merit. /We do not, for the sake of brevity, moreover, stop to examine and discuss the various propositions urged in the argument at bar for the purpose of demonstrating that the subject-matter of the combination, which we find to exist and the
Leading as this does to the conclusion that the assailed combination in all its aspects — that is to say, whether •it be looked at from the point of view of stock ownership or from the standpoint of the principal corporation and the accessory or subsidiary corporations viewed independently, including the foreign corporations in so far as by the contracts made by them they became cooperators in the combination — conies within the prohibitions of the first and second sections of the Anti-trust Act, it remains only, finally to consider the remedy , which it is our duty to apply to the situation thus found to exist.
The remedy.
Our conclusion being that the combination as a whole, involving all its cooperating or associated parts, in whatever form clothed, constitutes a restraint of tr,ade within the first section, and an attempt to monopolize or a monopolization within the second section of the Antitrust Act, it follows that the relief which we are to afford 'must be wider than that awarded by the lower court, since that court merely decided that certain of the corporate defendants constituted combinations in violation of the first section of the act, because of the fact that they were formed by the union of previously competing concerns and that the other defendants not dismissed from the action were parties to such combinations or promoted their purposes. We hence, in determining the relief proper to be given, may not model our action upon that granted by the court below, but in order to enable us to
Looking at the situation as we have hitherto pointed • it out, it involves difficulties in the application of remedies greater than have been presented by any case involving the Anti-trust Act which has been hitherto considered by this court: First. Because in this case it is obvious that a mere decree forbidding stock ownership by one part of the combination in another part or entity thereof, would afford no adequate measure of relief, since different
Pending the bringing about of the result just stated, each and all of the defendants, individuals as well as corporations, should be restrained from doing any act which might further extend or enlarge the power of the combination, by any means or device whatsoever. In view of the considerations we have stated we leave the matter to the court below to work out a compliance with the law without unnecessary injury to the public or the rights of private property.
While in many substantial respects our conclusion is in accord with that reached by the court 4below, and while also the relief which we think should be awarded in some respects is coincident with that which the court granted, in order to prevent any complication 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 with directions to the^ court below to enter a decree in conformity with this opinion and to take such further steps as maybe necessary to fully carry out the directions which we have given.
And it is so ordered.
James B. Duke, Caleb C.'Dula, Pereival S.,HilI, George Arents, Paul Brown, Robert B, Dula, George A..Helme, Robert D. Lewis, Thomas J. Maloney, Oliver H. Payne, Thomas F. Ryan, Robert K. Smith, George W; Watts, George G. Allen, John B. Cobb, William R. Harris, William H. McAlister, Anthony N. Brady, Benjamin N. Duke,
Extent of control of American Tobacco Company over the accessory corporations:-
cAmerican Snuff Company — of 120,000 shares of preferred stock owns 12,517 shares directly and 11,274 shares by reason of stock control of P. Lorillard Go., in all 23,764 shares; of 110,017 shares of common stock owns 41,214 directly and 34,594 by reason of stock control o'f P. Lorillard Co., in all 75,808 shares.
American Cig.ar Company — of 100,000 shares of preferred stock owns 89,700 shares directly and 5,000 shares through control of American Snuff Co., in a}} 94,700 shares; of 100,000 shares of feommon stock owns directly 77,451 shares.
America^, Stogie Company — of 108,790 shares of common stock controls 73,072% shares through stockdnterest in American Snuff Company. The American Stogie Company owns all of the stock— 12,500 — of the Union American Cigar Company — cigars and stogies.
MacAndrews & Forbes Company — of 37,585-shares of preferred stock (ño voting p$wer) owns 7,500 shares; of 30,000 shares of common stock owns 2i,129 shares directly and 983 shares through stock control of the R. J. Reynolds Co., in all 22,112 shares.
The Conley Foil Compariy• — of 8,250 shares of stock, directly owns 4,950 shares.
The American Tobacco Company — by stock ownership is the owner outright of the following defendant companies: S. Anargyros [The S. Anargyros Company owns all the capital stock (10 shares) of the London Cigarette Co.]; F. F. Adams Tobacco Co.; Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Co.; Crescent Cigar and Tobacco Co.; Day and Night Tobacco Co.; Luhrman & Wilbern Tobacco Co.; Nall & Williams Tobacoc■ Co.; Nashville Tobacco Works; R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co.; Monopol Tobacco Works; Spalding & Merrick.
British-American Tobacco Co. — owns 1,200,000 shares of 1,500,000 shares of preferred-stock and 2,280,012 shares of 3,720,021.shares of common stock.
The Imperial Tobacco Co., &c. — owns 721,457 pounds sterling of 18,000,000 pounds sterling of stock.
The John Bollman Co. — of 2,000 shares of stock owns 1,020 shares.
F. R. Penn Tobacco Co. — Of 1,503 shares of stock owns 1,002 shares (through Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Co.).
R. P. Richardson, Jr., & Co., Inc. — owns 600- out of 1,000 shares of stock and $120,000 of $200,000 issue- of bonds.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. — owns 50,000 out of 75,250 shares of stock.
Pinkerton Tobacco Co. — owns 775 out of 1,000 shares of stock.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. (of Bristol, Tenn.) — owns 1,449 shares out of 2,500 shares.
J. W. Carroll Tobacco Co. — owns 2,000 out of 3,000 shares. P. Lorillard Co. — owns 15,813 out of 20,000 shares of preferred and all the common stock (30,000 shares).
Kentucky Tobacco Product Co. — owns 14 of 1,900 shares preferred and owns directly 5,264, and, through the American Cigar Co., 355 out of 8,100 shares of common stock. [The Kentucky To-' bacco Product Co. owns all the capital stock (100 shares) of the Kentucky Tobacco Extract Co.]
Porto Rican-Ameriean Tobacco Co. — owns directly 6,578, and, through the American Cigar Co., 6,576 of 19,984 shares of stock. [The Porto Rican-American Tobacco Co. owns 190 of the 380 shares of preferred and 300 of the 450 shares of common stock of Ind. Co. of Porto Rico; also owns 2,150 of the 5,000 shares of capital stock of the Porto Rico Leaf Tobacco Co.]
The American Tobacco Company is also interested, as indicated, in the following defendants, supply or machinery companies: .
Golden Belt Manufacturing Co. (cotton bags) — owns 6,521 of 7,000 shares.
Mengel Box Co. (wood.en boxes) — British-American Tobacco Co.- owns . 3,637 of 5,000 shares of stock.
[The Mengel Company owns all of the capital stock of the Columbia
Amsterdam Supply Co. — (agency to purchase supplies) — owns majority of stock and controls large part of remainder through subsidiary companies.
Thomas Cusack Co. — (bill posting) — owns 1,000 out of 1,500 shares.
Manhattan Briar Pipe Co. — owns all of stock, 3,500 shares.
International Cigar Machinery Co. — of 100,000 shares owns 33,637 shares directly and 29,902 shares through Am. Cigar Co. — in all 63,539 shares.
The American Tobacco Company is also interested in the following companies, not named as defendants:
American Machine & Foundry Co. — owns 510 shares directly and remainder (490) through Am. Cigar Co.
New Jersey Machine Co. — owns 510 shares directly and remainder (490) through Am. Cigar Co. .
Standard Tobacco Stemmer Co. — of 17,300 shares owns 16,895 shares.
Garson Vending Machine Co. — of 500 shares owns 250 shares.
The American Snuff Company in addition to stock, etc., interests in the American Tobacco Co., American Cigar Company, and the Amr sterdam Supply Company, has stock interests in the following defendants:
H. Bolander — owns all of stock, 1,350 shares;
De Voe Snuff Co. — owns all of stock, 500 shares. [The De Voe Snuff Co. owns all the capital stock, 400 shares of Skinner.& Co., snuff.]
Standard Snuff Co. — owns all of stock, 2,816 shares.
The American Cigar Co. in addition to stock interests in the Amsterdam Supply Co., American Stogie Co., Porto Rican-Ameriean Tobacco Co., Kentucky Tobacco Product Co. and International Cigar Machinery Co., has the stock interest indicated in the following defendants: R. D. Burnett Cigar Co. — owns 77 out of Í50 shares;
M. Blaskower Co. — owns 1,875 out of 2,500 shares pref. and 1,875 • out of 2,500 shares of common. •
Cliff Weil Cigar Co. — owns 255 out of-500 shares.-
Dusel, Goodloe & Co. — owns 510 out of 750 shares.
Federal Cigar Real Estate Co. — owns all stock; 6,000 shares.,
J. J. Goodrum Tobacco Co. — owns 477 out of 600 shares.
Havana-Ameriean Co. — owns all stock, 2,500 shares.
Havana Tobacco Co. — owns 700 shares out of 47,038 preferred, 166,800 out of 297,912 common stock, and $3,500,000 of $7,500,000 bonds.
Jordan Gibson & Baum Co., Inc. — owns all preferred and common stock, 250' shares each.
Louisiana Tobacco Co., Limited — owns 375 out of 500 shares.
The J. B. Moos Company — owns all of stock, 2,000 shares.
J. & B. Moos — owns all of common stock, 1,000 shares.
Porto Rican Leaf Tobacco Co. — owns 2,500 out óf"5-,6QQ shares.
The Smokers’ Paradise Corporation — owns all of common stock (250 shares) and 349 of 500 shares preferred.
Havana Tobacco Co. has a stock interest in the following corporations:
H. de Cabanis y Carbajal — all'of stock, 15,000 shares.
Hy. Clay and Bock & Co., Lim. — owns 9,749 out of 16,950 shares preferred and 14,687 out of 15,990 shares common.
[The Hy. Clay, &c., Co. is owner of 16,667 shares of the ordinary capital stock of the Havana Cigar & Tobacco Factories, Limited; and also-owns 64 shares of -t.he 1.890 shares of the capital stock of the
Vuelta Abajo S. S. Co.]
Cuban Tobacco Co. — owns all of stock, 50 shares.
Havana Commercial Co. — owns 55,562 out of 60,000 shares preferred and' 124,71S out of 125,000 shares common.
[The Havana Commercial Co. owns all of the capital stock — 100 shares —of the M„Válle y Co. — cigars.] . v
Havana Cigar & Tobacco Factories, Lim. — owns 6,774 out of 25,000 shares ordinary stock.
J. S. Murias y Co. — owns all of stock — 7,500 shares.
Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Co. — in addition to a stock interest in the
F. P. Penn Tobacco Co: — owns 1,002 out of 1,503 shares.
Scottcn-Dillon Co. — owns $10,000 out of $500,000 of stock.
Wells-Whitehead Tobacco Co. — owns all of stock, 1,500 shares.
Conley Foil Company — owns all of the capital stock (3,000 shares) of the Johnson Tin Foil and Metal Co. .
P. Lorillard Company — has a stock interest in the American Snuff Company and the Amsterdam Supply Co.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.: — in addition to a stock interest in the Amsterdam Supply Company and the MacAndrews & Forbes Company, owns two-thirds of the 5,000 shares of stock of the Liipfert Scales Co.
The British-American Tobacco Co. — in addition to a small interest in the Amsterdam Supply Company, has the following stock interest in certain defendants:
David Dunlop — plug—owns 3,000 of 4,500 shares.
W. S. Mathews & Sons — smoking—owns 3,637 out of 5,000 shares of stock.
T. C. Williams Company — plug—owns all of stock, 4,000 shares.
The output of the American Tobacco Company for 1891 was—
Number.' Pounds.
Cigarettes.........................2,788,778,000 ......
Cheroots and little cigars.....:...... 40,009,000 ......
Smoking................................ 13,813,355
Fine cut............ 560,633
Snuff.............................. ' ...... 383,162
Plug................ - ...... , 4,442,774
Total output for the United States, 1891—
Cigarettes.................•........3,137,318,596 ......
Smoking.............. 76,708,300
Fine cut........................... ’ ...... 16,968,870
Plug and twist..................... ...... . 166,177,915
Snuff..........,.................. ...... . 10,674,241
P. J. Sorg Co.', having factory at Middletown, Oh(o, who received preferred stock $4,350,000, '■ common stock $4,525,000, and cash $224,375. ’
John-Finzer and Brothers, having factory at Louisville, Kentucky, who received preferred stock $2,250,000, common stock $3,050,000, and cash $550,000.
Daniel Scotten & Có., having factory at Detroit, Michigan, who received preferred stock $1,911,100, and common stock $3,01-2,500.
P. H. Mayo & Bros., having factory at Richmond, .Va., who received preferred stock $1,250,000, common stock $1,925,000, and cash $66,125. ■ -
John Wright Co., having factory at Richmond, Va., who received preferred stock $495,000, common stock $495,000, and cash $4,116.67.
Monopol Tobacco Works (New York, N. Y.) — Capital $40,000— cigarettes and smoking tobacco. In 1899 the American Tobacco Co. acquired all the shares for $250,000, and it is now a selling agency.
Luhrman & Wilbern Tobacco Company (Middletown, Ohio)— Capital $900;000 — scrap tobacco. This business was formerly carried on by a partnership.
Mengel Box Company (Louisville, Ky.) — Capital $2,000,000— boxes for packing tobacco. This company has acquired the stock ($150,000) of Columbia Bdx Company and of Tyler Box Company ($25,000), both at St. Louis.
The Porto Rican-American. Tobacco Company (Porto Rico) — Capital- $1,799,600. In 1899 the America^ Company caused the organization of the Porto Rican-American Tobacco Company, which took over the partnership business of Rucabado y Pórtela — manufacturer of cigars and cigarettes — with covenants not to compete. The American Tobacco Company and American Cigar Company each hold $585,300 of the stock; the balance is in the hands of individuals.
Kentucky Tobacco Product Company (Louisville, Ky.)- — Capital $1,000,000. In 1899 the Continental Company acquired control of the Louisville Spirit-Cured Tobacco Co.,’engaged in .curing'and treating tobacco and utilizing the .stems for fertilizers. By agreement, the Kentucky Tobacco Product Company was organized in New Jersey, with $1,000,000 capital, $450,000 issued to the old stockholders, and $550,000 to Continental Company as consideration for' agreement to supply stems.
Golden Belt Manufacturing Company (North Carolina) — Capital, $700,000 — cotton bags and containers. In 1899 the American Tobacco Company acquired the business' of this corporation, which was formed to take over a going business.
The Conley Foil Company (New York) — Tinfoil Combination— Capital, $825,000. In December, 1899, The American Tobacco Company secured control of the business of John Conley & Son (Partnership),New York, N. Y., manufacturers of tinfoil, an essential for pack
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). In 1899 the Continental Tobacco Company acquired control of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, one of the largest manufacturers of plug — output in 1898, 6,000,000 pounds. By agreement, a new corporation (with same name) was organized in New Jersey and capitalized at $5,000,000 (afterwards $7,525,000), which took over the business and assets of the old one. The Continental Company immediately acquired'the majority shares and The American Company now holds $5,000,000 of stock. The separate organization has been preserved.
There was acquired in the name of the new Reynolds Company, with covenants against competition, the following plants:
In 1900, T. L. Vaughn & Company, partnership, of Winston, N. C.; consideration, $90,506; Brown Brothers Company; a North Carolina corporation, Winston, N. C.; consideration, $67,615\; and P. H. Hanes & Company and B. F. Hanes & Company, Winstoii, N. C., partnership; consideration, $67.1,950.
In 1905, Rucker & Witten Tobacco Company, Martinsville, Va.; consideration, $512,898. i
In 1906, D. H. Spencer & Company, Martinsville, Va.; consideration, $314,255.
(All of the foregoing plants were closed as soon as purchased.)
A majority of the $400,000 capital stock in the Liipfert-Scales Company, of Winston, N. C., a corporation largely engaged in the manufacture of plug tobacco and interstate and foreign commerce in leaf tobacco and its products, was acquired by the Reynolds Company. The separate organization of the Liipfert-Scales Company is preserved and the business carried on under its corporate name.
The R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company also holds $98,300 of stock of
Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Company (Durham,N. C.) — Capital $1,000,000. In 1899 The American Tobacco Company .procured for $4,000,000 all the stock of Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Company at Durham, N. C., manufacturer and distributer of tobacco products. Thereupon the Blackwell’s Durham Tobacco Company, of New-Jersey, capital, $1,000,000, all owned by the American, was organized and took over the assets of the old company, then under receivership. Its separate organization has been preserved.
The Durham Company has acquired control of the following competitors — Reynold’s Tobacco Company; F. R. Penn Tobacco Company; and W ells-^Whitehead Tobacco Company.
The following companies came also under the control of the American Tobacco Company through acquired stock ownership.
S. Anargyros — capital $650,000 — Turkish cigarettes. In 1890 The American Tobacco Company procured the organization of corporation of S. Anargyros, which took over that individual's going business and has since controlled it. Through this company the business in Turkish cigarettes is largely conducted.
The John Bollman Company (San Francisco) — Capital $200,000— cigarettes. In 1900 The American Tobacco Company procured organization of The John Bollman Company, which took over the business of the former concern in exchange for stock. Its.separate organization has been preserved.
To buy, manufacture, sell and otherwise deal in tobacco and the products of tobacco in any. and all forms; ... to guarantee dividends on any shares of the capital stock of any corporation in which said merged corporation has an interest as stockholder; . . .
Concurrence in Part
concurring in part and dissenting in párt.
; I concur with many things said in the opinion just delivered for. the court, but it contains some observations from which I am compelled to withhold my assent.
I agree most thoroughly with the court in holding that the principal defendant, the American Tobacco Company and its accessory and subsidiary corporations and companies, including the defendant English corporations, constitute a combination which, “ in and of itself, as well as each and all of the elements composing it, whether corporate or individual, whether considered collectively or separately,” is illegal under the Anti-trust Act of 1890, and should be decreed to be in restraint of interstate trade and an attempt to mpnopolize and a monopolization of part of such trade.
The evidence in the record is, I think, abundant to enable the court to render a decree containing all necessary details for the suppression of the evils of the combination in question. But the case is sent back, with directions fur-, ther to .hear the parties, by evidence or otherwise, “for the purpose of ascertaining and determining upon some plan or method of dissolving the combination, and' of recreating out of the elements wow composing it, a new condition” which shall not be repugnant to law. The court, in its opinion, says of the present combination, that its illegal purposes are overwhelmingly established by many facts, among others, “ by the ever-present manifestation which is exhibited of a conscious wrong-doing by the form in which' the various transactions were embodied from the beginning, ever changing, but ever in substance the same. Now the organization of a new company, now the control exerted by the taking of stock in one or another, or in several, so as to obscure the result actually attained, nevertheless' uniform in their manifestations of the purpose to restrain
But- it seems that the course I have suggested is not to be pursued. The case is to go back to the Circuit Court in order that out of the elements of the old combination a new condition may be “re-created” that will not be in violation of the law. I confess my inability to find, in the history of this combination, anything to justify the wish that a new condition should be “re-created” out of the mischievous elements that compose the present combination, which, together with its component parts, have, without ceasing, pursued the vicious methods pointed out by the court. If the proof before us — as it undoubtedly does — warrants the characterization which the court has made of this monster combination, why cannot all necessary directions be now given as to .the terms of the decree? In'my judgment, there is enough in the record to enable this court to formulate specific directions as to what the decree should contain. Such directions would
I will not say what, in my opinion, should be the. form of the decree, nor speculate as to what the details ought to be. It will be time enough to speak on that subject when we have the decree before us. I will, however, say now that in my opinion the decree below should be affirmed as to t&e Tobacco company and its accessory and subsidiary companies, and reversed on the cross appeal of the Government.
But my objections have also reference to those parts of the court’s opinion reaffirming what it said recently in the Standard Oil Case about the former decisions of this court touching the Anti-trust Act. We are again reminded, as we were in the Standard Oil Case, of the necessity of applying the “rule of reason” in the construction of this act of Congress — an act expressed, as I think, in language so clear and simple that there is no room whatever for construction.
Congress, with full and exclusive power over the whole 'subject, has signified its purpose to forbid every restraint of interstate trade, in whatever form, or to whatever extent, but the court has assumed to insert in the act, by construction merely, words which make Congress say that it means only to prohibit the “undue ” restraint of trade.
If I do not misapprehend the opinion just delivered, the court insists that what was said in the opinion in the Standard Oil Case, was in accordance with our previous decisions in the Trans-Missouri and Joint Traffic cases, 166 U. S. 290, 171 U. S. 505, if we resort to reason. This statement surprises me quite as much as would a statement that black was white or white was black. ' It is scarcely just to the majority in those two cases for the
By every conceivable form of expression, the majority, in the Trans-Missouri and Joint Traffic cases, adjudged that the act of Congress did not allow restraint of inter-, state trade to any extent or in any form, and three times it expressly rejected the theory, which had been persistently advanced, that the act should be construed as if it had in it the word “unreasonable” or “undue.” But now the court, in accordance with what it denominates the “rule of reason,” in effect inserts in the act the word “undue,” which means the same as “unreasonable,” and thereby makes Congress say what it did not say, what, as I think, it plainly did not intend to say and what, since the passage of the act, it has explicitly refused to say. It has steadily refused to amend the act so as to tolerate a restraint of interstate commerce even where such restraint could be said to be “reasonable”.or “due.” In short, the court now, by judicial legislation, in effect amends an act of Congress relating to a subject over which that department of the Government has exclusive cognizance. I beg to say that, in my judgment, the majority, in the former cases, were guided by the “rule of reason;” for, it may be assumed that they knew quite as well as. others what the rules of reason require when a court seeks to ascertain the will of Congress as expressed in a statute. It is obvious from the opinions in the former cases, that the majority did not grope about in darkness, but in discharging the. solemn duty put on them they stood out in the full glare of the “light of reason” and felt and said time and again
These views are fully discussed in the dissenting opinion delivered by me in the Standard Oil Case. I will not repeat what is therein stated, but it may be well to cite an additional authority. In the Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, the court was asked to sustain the constitutionality of the statute there involved. But the statute could not have been sustained except by inserting in it words not put there by Congress. Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, said: “If we should, in the case before us, undertake to make by judicial construction a law which Congress did not make, it is quite probable we should do what, if the matter weré how before that body, it would be unwilling to do.” This language was cited with approval in Employers’ Liability Cases, 207 U. S. 463, 602. I refer to my dissenting opinion in the Standard Oil Case, ante, p. 82, as containing a full statement of my views of this particular ¿TQestion.
For the reasons stated,! concur in part with the court’s opinion and dissent in part.
