United States v. American Tobacco Co.

Supreme Court of the United States
31 S. Ct. 632, 221 U.S. 106, 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1726 (1911)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that, judged by a 'rule of reason,' are found to have the intent or effect of unreasonably restraining trade or monopolizing a part of commerce.


Facts:

  • Prior to 1890, the American tobacco industry consisted of numerous competitive manufacturers, with five major firms (Allen & Ginter; W. Duke, Sons & Co.; Kinney Tobacco; W.S. Kimball & Co.; and Goodwin & Co.) engaged in fierce competition in the cigarette market.
  • In January 1890, these five competitors merged to form the American Tobacco Company, which immediately controlled approximately 95% of the domestic cigarette market.
  • From 1891 to 1898, the American Tobacco Company acquired over fifteen competing tobacco concerns, often requiring the sellers to sign long-term covenants not to compete and frequently shutting down the acquired plants.
  • Following a ruinous price war in the plug tobacco market, the American Tobacco Company in 1898 collaborated with several leading plug manufacturers to form the Continental Tobacco Company, consolidating control over that sector.
  • Between 1900 and 1903, the combined companies formed specialized corporations to dominate other markets, including the American Snuff Company, American Cigar Company, and companies that controlled essential supplies like tinfoil (Conley Foil Company) and licorice paste (MacAndrews & Forbes Company).
  • In 1901, key individuals formed a holding company, the Consolidated Tobacco Company, to acquire the common stock of both the American and Continental companies, further centralizing control.
  • In 1902, after a trade war in Great Britain, the American Tobacco Company and the British Imperial Tobacco Company agreed to divide global markets, creating the British-American Tobacco Company to manage their combined export business.
  • In 1904, the American Tobacco Company, Continental Tobacco Company, and Consolidated Tobacco Company were formally merged into a single new corporation, The American Tobacco Company, solidifying the combination's control over all facets of the tobacco industry.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States filed a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against the American Tobacco Company and numerous other corporate and individual defendants.
  • The government's petition alleged that the defendants were engaged in a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and were monopolizing the tobacco industry in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
  • After a hearing, the four-judge Circuit Court panel found that the main corporate defendants constituted illegal combinations and enjoined their continued operation.
  • The Circuit Court dismissed the petition as to the individual defendants, two foreign corporations, and the United Cigar Stores Company.
  • Both the United States and the defendant corporations against whom the decree was entered filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the combination of the American Tobacco Company and its various subsidiary and acquired corporations, through their control of the tobacco market via stock acquisitions, mergers, and anti-competitive practices, constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade and monopolization in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice White

Yes. The combination constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade and monopolization in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Applying the 'rule of reason' established in Standard Oil, the Act prohibits acts that unduly restrict competition or obstruct trade, considering their inherent nature, effect, and purpose. The history of the American Tobacco Company demonstrates a persistent and wrongful purpose to acquire dominion over the tobacco industry, not through normal business growth, but through predatory and exclusionary methods. This illegal intent is overwhelmingly established by: (a) its formation to end a trade war; (b) its subsequent initiation of price wars to force competitors to either join the combination or be driven from the market; (c) the constant use of various corporate forms to obscure unified control; (d) the absorption of control over essential supplies; (e) the expenditure of millions to purchase and close competing plants; and (f) the systematic use of restrictive covenants to eliminate future competition. These acts, viewed collectively, are not the result of ordinary business methods but are manifestations of an illegal scheme to monopolize.


Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Harlan

Yes. While the combination is clearly illegal, the court's reasoning relies on a flawed 'rule of reason.' The plain text of the Sherman Act prohibits 'every' restraint of trade, not just 'unreasonable' ones; by inserting this standard, the Court is engaging in judicial legislation and amending a statute that Congress has deliberately left broad. The previous decisions in Trans-Missouri and Joint Traffic correctly interpreted the Act to forbid all restraints, regardless of their supposed reasonableness. Furthermore, the record is sufficient for this Court to issue a specific decree ordering the dissolution of the illegal combination immediately, rather than remanding the case for the lower court to 'recreate' a new market structure out of the 'mischievous elements' of the old one.



Analysis:

This decision, issued shortly after Standard Oil, firmly established the 'rule of reason' as the controlling standard for analyzing most alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It confirmed that courts must undertake a comprehensive inquiry into the purpose, nature, and effect of a business combination to determine its legality, rather than condemning it based on size or form alone. The case demonstrates that a history of predatory conduct, such as buying and closing competitors' plants and engaging in price wars to eliminate rivals, serves as powerful evidence of an unlawful intent to monopolize. The remedy ordered—dissolution and 'recreation' of a competitive market—set a significant precedent for broad, structural relief in complex monopolization cases.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. American Tobacco Co. (1911) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.