Newspaper Page Text
TBE PJflPATCH rOUNDBD 1850.
THE TIMES FOUNDED UM. WHOLE NUMBER 18,635. RICHMOND, VA., TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1911. TUBS WIU1BBB TO-DAY-P_. PRIOE TWO CENTS. STORY OE PLOT AND DISCOVERY STIR MEXICANS Plan Was to Overthrow Madero, Chief of ' Insurrectos. TWO SUSPECTS LANDED IN JAIL Believed That Rebel Chief Is in Possession of Facts Not Gen? erally Known, and This Accounts for His Delay in Starting to Capital. El Paso, Tex., May 29.?Revelations of. an alleged plot to start another revolution In Mexico, after over? throwing- the leadership of Francisco I. Madero, Jr., en'l preventing his journey to Mexico City, created lntonse excitement throughout the Insurrecto army to-day. That Madero has been advised of certain facts not general}* known, Is believed b>' some to explain the delay In his departure to the capital to con? sult with President de la Barra con? cerning the pressing problems con? nected with the reorganization of the government, although Sonor Madero himself declared ho postponed his trip merely to await the Installation of the provisional governors. The plot which last night resulted In the arrest of Dan uo Vllllers, of Mexico City, at El Paso, and of W. V. Dunn, an American, at Monteroy. Mexico, Is said to Include throe In? surrecto chiefs operating In the state of Coahulla. A telegram from Mon? terey to-day states that Dunn, on Ma dero's orders, haw been placed Incom? municado for seventy-two hours. De Vllllers Is held In the El Paso jail on charges of "conspiracy to murder Krancisco I. Madero, Jr." According to General Benjamin VIII Joen. the Boer veteran, who is Ma dero's chief military adviser, the scheme was that Villjoen and General Orozco wore to desert Madero and start a new revolutionary movement. This was to b? Joined by certain In? surrecto leaders now in the field, to? gether with a Federal general known to be friendly to the "Clontlflco" party. It was represented to him. General Villjoen asserts, that great quantities of arms and ammunition were stored In the mine sof Coahulla in anticipa? tion of the new outbreak, and that success was assured, as "Madero would never reach Mexico City." Weck? of Conference. Behind the arrest of the two alleged conspirators last night is the story of several weeks of conference, and the exchange of many telegrams. Soon after the battle of Juarez, General Villjoen received a lelcgTftm from Mexico City, saying "the government wants to mako a proposition." The telegram was signed Vllllers. Madero was Informed of the telegram, and It was decided to give every encourage? ment to those behind the overtures. Villjoen accordingly sent a reply, stating that he "was open to receive propositions." This was followed by a telegram from Do Vllllers, instructing Villjoen "to watch the rebel chief, note by what route he comes and when ho leaves. Make friends with Orozco. There Is a fortune In sight tor us." Shortly after this two men appear? ed In El Paso and secretly met Vill? joen and Orozco, who proposed their willingness to enter the plot. Villjoen declared he was to receive 125,000, and Orozoo a like amount. Money was given them for current expenses. Vill? joen receiving $480 and Orozco $200. Dunn, who was one of the pair, Vill? joen asserts, translated to them a cipher message, which hear: Last message at hand. Rosen work? ing fast for change of Federal city. Do not worry about financial end, of which will take care. Would ad? vise direct action Diaz at early time. Be very careful slip. Continue ad? vising and act as you think best. Mex? ico City man says agent Figueroa brothers coming to you from south. (Signed) "ADOLFO." Message From Agent. The mesa.go it was cxplaii.ed, came from the agent of the conspiracy at Mexico City. The reference to Diaz was not explained by General Vill? joen. Agreement having been reached will Villjoen and Orozco, Dunn started for Mexico City, followed by private detectives.-with instructions to arrest him on Mexican soil. The arrest was made at Monterey last night. Telegrams from there declared that important papers had been found on the prisoner. According to General Villjoen, a third alleged consp'rator was to have been arrested at Mexico City, but sufficient evidence could not be obtained. De Vllllers, when seen at the coun? ty jail to-day, looked cheerful, hut refused to discuss the charge against him. "I am Innocent of any charge, and I'll be out In a few days and have a drink with you all," ho said, laugh? ingly, through the prison bars to the newspaper men. Asked about the telegrams which had been found on him, and which General Villjoen claims were shown to him, t,he prisoner replied: "None of the telegrams were addressed to me." Though some of the messages used aliases, thosfe which Constable Brown found on De Vllllers, according to Brown's declaration to-day, are ad? dressed to Dan'el VlUlers: De Vllllers a Rnncher. De Vllllers declared he was a rancher, and that his home la In San Antonio. He said ho - fought In the Boer War and there met General Vill? joen. It was the intimacy arising from that meeting on which, It is bolleved,, De Vllllers based his Idea (Continued on Third Pago.) W PORTRAIT MAV BE CENTRE OF SENSATION Artist Kectaives $850, but Who Got the Rest? Voucher shows IT COST $2,450 Portrait Painter Says He Signed Paper in Blank, and Later It Was Filled Out for Greater Amount?Committee Go? ing to Bottom of 1 .Affair. Washington, D. C, May 23.?Albert Roscnthal, a Philadelphia portrait painter, to-day startled the House committee which is investigating ex? penditures in the State Department i with the charge that he was paid only $850 for a oortrn'l of Associate Jus? tice William R. Day, former Secre? tary of State, while the Slate Depart? ment records contain a voucher and receipt indicating that he was paid 12,450 , Mr. Rosenthal indicated that he learned of the voucher being made out for this amount, practically three times what he received, when Charles Denby, who had succeeded Colonel W. H. Michael as chief clerk of the State Department, .reproved Mr. Rosenthal for charging so much for tho Day portralt. Mr. Roscnthal told Mr. Den? by he had received only JS50. and 5tr. Denby immediately sent for tho vouch? er and permitted the artist to see It. Immediately after Mr. Roscnthal had given tl.'s testimony the commit? tee sent to the Stale Department for the voucher In quesl'on. It Is the In? tention of the committee to go to the bottom of the affair. Mr. Rosenthal told the committee that he painted the Day portrait for his series of the Supremo Court. "He said that if he likod the por? trait he would want It for the State Department." said Mr. Rosonthal. "Who said that?" asked Representa? tive Hamlln. of Missouri, the commit? tee chairman. I "Mr. Justice Day." Mr. Rosenthal re : plied. ... - . Hnd Afirrfcmeut With Day, ' Mr. Hamlln asked Mr. Rosenthal If ! he had any agreement with anybody connected with the State Department as to the cost of the portrait. "No," said Mr. Roscnthal, "but I had an agreement with Mr. Justice Day that I should riot charge more than JSf.u. with the frame." Mr. Rosenthal then remarked that the painting was completed and placed In the State Department, where it Is n present, and that he received $850 for it. I "Is that all the money you, recelv-d?" Mr. Hamlln inquired. "Yes, *-ir." "And how did you receive that money?" "It has been so long ago," sjid Mr. nu;.enlhal, "that all I knov is that 1 rtctlved a check for TS50. ' "From Colonel Michael, chief clerk quired. "From Colonel Mlchaeel. chief clerk of the Department of State st that time," Mr. Rosenthal rejoined. "What kind of a check d(d you re? ceive?" the chairman continued. "Was It his personal check?" . "Well," replied Mr. Rose.nthiil. "I , could not swear to that; my Impression is It was. but I could not swear to that fact." The chairman then asked Mr. Rosen thai If he had signed any voucher or receipt. "Always In my dealings with the de? partment," said the witness, "I havo gotten some voucher, and I find a voucher in this case." "A government voucher?" he was askul. "Yes. sir." said Mr. Rosenthal. "Did you know what that voucher contained when you signed it?" chair? man Hamlln asked. "I do not recall that It contained anything." said Mr. Roscnthal. Signed Blank Voucher. "Was It a blank voucher?" "It was," Mr. Rosenthal replied. The chairman then asked the artist If he had since had occasion to see that vouchor. Mr. Rosenthal said that he had. He said that in February or March, 1907. he had occasion to go to the State Department on another mat? ter. "The subject of the voucher was brought up by Mr. Denby,"' he said, "and the subject of my price for Mr. Day's portrnit wns brought up. We were discussing a portrait of Secretary Hay that 1 painted and loaned for the Portland exposition, and that caused Mr. Denby to remark that my price wns more thnn the department had , ordlnurlly been charged, i "I snld that was not possible: that T ' hnd gotten $S50. HP snld: 'There is j some mistake, because the voucher j calls for a good deal more.' My Im? pression Is he showed me the voucher, and It called for ?2.400 or ?2,450. j Either one or the other." "Wns that the voucher that you had signed?" the chairman Inquired. "It had my signature on It," said Mr. Rosenthal. "You signed It In blank?" suggested the chairman. Mr. Rosenthal replied In the affirmative. "And when you saw that voucher It was for $2,400 or $2.450?" a member ; asked. "Now, what did you say or do?" "Of course, I told them I had not re? ceived that amount." said Mr. Rosen thai. He ndded that he told Mr. Denby the amount he did receive, and also that he "thought it was only due to Justice Day to Inform him of the fact. I did that. I simply told him that I I wns confronted with a voucher for I $2.450 for his portrait: that 1 had i ngreed to paint it for $s50, and had ? received $850." "Do you know what, If anything, he ' (Continued on Ninth Page.) TOBACCO TRUST IS ORDERED TO DISINTEGRATE, SUPREME COURT DECLARING IT OUTLAW MONOPOLY BUILT UP IN VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT V igor ous D issent to Part of Decision Delivered by Harlan. HE OEJECTS TO "RULEOF REASON" Holds That Court Has No Right to Amend Act by Judicial Legislation, Thus Usurping Prerogative of Congress. His Position Same as in Standard Oil Case. What Court Holds In Tobacco Case The tobacco trust decision Is char? acterized by Attorney-General Wlck erohaui uk a "moat comprehenslve and iMveepInK" victory for the gov. eminent. The trust la held to be a combina? tion In restraint of trade?a monop? oly In violation of law. The decision afTecta sixty-five American corporations, two English corporations and twenty-nine Indi? vidual defendants. An opportunity ts given the trust to disintegrate and recreate a con? dition of transacting business not repugnant to Inn. If at the end of six to eight months Ihe corporations fall to lirlnc themselves within the law, a receivership and dissolution by court decree will follow. Tbe trust ts held to have beeu Kiillty of in 11 ml ilnt Ion and clearly to hnve shown a purpose to stifle competition. Cbtef Justice White announced tbe decision, which wns practically unanimous, although Justice Harlan dissented on several points. As in the Standard Oil rase, Jus? tice Harlan resents the application of the "'rule of renson" to the Sher? man anti-trust law. The court having; held the de? fendant corporntlonn Kullty of con? scious wrouKdolun, Justice Hnrlnn "Is not at all nnxloiis" to perpetuate any now combination growing out of tbenv t "Washington,' ?Jliv 20.?Associate Justice Harlan delivered a vigorous dissent to-dny to part of the decision of the Supreme Court of tbe United States in the tobacco case, although he agreed that the American Tobneco Company and Its necessary and sub? sidiary corporation* were members of an unlawful combination In violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. His dissent, as expressed from tho bench, centred around .two points. First, he took issue with the court for sending tbe case back to the lower court. "I hnve found notbliiK In tbe record," be snld, "which makes me nt all anxious to perpetuate any new combi? nation among these companies which the court concedeH bad at all time* exerted a conscious wrong-doing. In the second place, he reiterated the objections he expressed In the Standard Oil Company of New Jorsey decision of two weeks ago to the adoption of the "rule of reason" as a standard for ascertaining what re? straints of trade violate the Sherman anti-trust law. No Room for Construction. "My objections," said Justice Har? lan, "have particular reference to those parts of the court's opinion which reaffirm what It said recent? ly in the Standard Oil case about the former decisions of this court touch? ing the anti-trust act. We are re? minded again as we were In the Standard Oil case, of the necessity to apply the -rule of reason' In the con? struction of the act of Congress which is, I think, expressed In language 00 clear and simple that there Is no room whatever for construction. "Congress, with full and exclusive power over the whole subject, has sig? nified its purpose to forbid every re? straint of interstate trade, In what? ever 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 'undue' re? straint of trade. "If 1 do not mlsopprehend the opinion Just delivered, the court says that what wns said In the opinion in the Standard Oil case was In ac? cordance with our previous decisions in the trans-Missouri and joint traffic cases, 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 for the court at this late day to say .or intimate that ' Justice Peckhom and his colleagues, I who agreed with him, interpreted Jlio act of Congress without regard to the ?rule of reason,' or to assume that the act was. for the first time in the Standard Oil caso Interpreted in the 'light of reason.' "Now, the court, In accordance with what It denominates tho 'rule of rea? son,' In aft'coi, inserts In the act tho word "undue' and makes Congress sny what'it-did not say, what .It. plainly did not Intend to say, and what, since (Continued on Second Page.) CHIEF JUS-ilCE WHITE. --, ATTOHNEY-CJEXEHAL. WTCKERSHAJU ASSOCIATE JUSTICE U A KLAN. JAMES B. DU ICH, SERVICE HOURS Supreme Court Holds Law Fought by Railroad Com? pany Constitutional. WORK-TIME IS LIMITED Companies Restrained From Keeping Employes on Duty Unreasonable Period. Washington, May 29.?The "hours of service law for railroad employes," passed by Congress In 1907, was up? held to-day as constitutional by the Supreme Court of the Unlred States. This decision was announced by Jus? tice Hughes In the test Bult. Instituted by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. The act made It unlawful for any common carrier engaged In Interstate commerce to permit any trainmen sub? ject to the act to remain on duty for a longer period than sixteen con? secutive hours, or any telegraph oper? ator more than nine or thirteen hours, according to the time the telegraph sta? tion was opened for business. The act also created periods of rest for the employes. ' ' , ' The Baltimore and, Ohio' Railroad Company attacked the law as uncon? stitutional, on the ground that it ap? plied to Intrastatc as well as to In? terstate railroads and employes. The order by which the Interstate Com? merce Commission placed the law into operation was attacked also. The rail? road claimed that Congress could not and did not attempt to delegate to the commission the power to reuulro reports of violation of the law; tlrat the labor and expense necessary to make the reports constituted a taking of the railroad's property without due process of law, and. therefore, in vio? lation of the Constitution; and that It compelled self-lncrlmlnatlon by officers and employes of the railroad, also In violation of the Constitution. '? The objections to the law were met with denials b>' the government. Both the law itself and the order, drafted by the Interstate Commerce Commis? sion, were upheld as constitutional by j the Circuit Court of the United States for tho District of Maryland, where the case originated. MOTHER SAVES CHILD Hut She Leaves ItiinbnDil tn His Self inflicted Death. Decntur. Ind., May 2!>.?Harvey Par? ker knotted a rope about the neck of his four-year-old daughter and swung her body from a rafter In his barn to? day Just before he committed suicide In the same manner. Mrs. Parker dis? covered tho two bodies in time to save the child, but left her husband hang? ing until the coroner arrived. Neigh? bors say jealousy was responsible for the husband's deed. An Industrial Revolution "Uncle Sam and Hin Cotton Crop" In the subject which Frank G. Car? penter hnn taken for hla luduntrlnl Ntory In The Ttmea-Dlaiiatch next Sunday. Ho will tell of the great movement ?hieb affect* the life blond of the South, and of the 7r,,0<m farms now under government direc? tion. It Is the lntereatlng tnlr nf a wonderful Industrial revolution. IS OFFERED BRIBE! I FIVE FIGURES1 Juror Approached in Behalf of Wireless Company Defendants. CHARGE MADE BY WISE Wilson and Associates Found Guilty and Sentenced to Prison. New York, May 29.?Christopher Columbus Wilson, president of the United Wireless Telegraph Company, and four of his associates were con? victed in the criminal branch of the United States Circuit Court late to? day on fraudulent use of the mails to solicit subscriptions to Wireless stock. Judge Martin immediately imposed sentence, as follows: President Wilson, three years in the Federal prison at Atlanta; George H. Parker and F. E. Butler, two years each In the same penitentiary; W. A. Diboll and W. W. Tompklns, one year each In some New York penitentiary. Following a sensational charge by District Attorney Wise that one of the, jurors had been approached Sun? day night In the interests of the de? fendants with the offer of a bribe "even if It ran Into five figures," and his characterization of tho convicted men as "desporate prisoners who would dec the jurisdiction of the court if admitted to bail, "Judge Martin committed the five men to the Tombs under a ten days' stuy to allow an appeal to tho Circuit Court of Ap? peals If they desire. ; Mr. Wise's sensational charge of at? tempted jury bribery came when a I lawyer for the defendants pooh-poohed the Idea that the prisoners would run I away. Mr. Wise reddened as he ap j proached the bench and exclaimed: "I know. Your Honor, that money was offered to pull me off. I know that ono Juror was offered any amount of money I up ;o five figures If he would hang the I Jury. I know there was n certain law? yer Interested In having money put In I my hands to withdraw from the prose i cution of a certain defendant." I As If actuate ' by a common Impulse, the ten lawyers for 1he defense ad? vanced toward Mr. Wise, who stood with his fists clenched and eyes dash? ing. Tho whole courtroom Jumped up, expecting to see an encounter. In? stead, one of tho "torneys calmly de? manded of Mr. Wise the name of the lawyer. I "I will name him at the right time and place." shouted Mr. Wise. I .Netted .More Than Million. In summing up, District Attorney Wise declared that It had been shown "Wilson netted $900,000 from tho sale of 70,000 shares of stock, but In all $1,500,000 went Into his own pockets." Subtracting also the profits which his Sociales were accused of pocket? ing "ly $700,000 out of the $3.000.000 rec< ijS of the United Wireless Com? pany in-throe years went Into the treas? ury of the company. Each of the defendants was convicted on four counts, three in each case charging misuse of the malls and the fourth conspiracy. The' maximum sen? tence might have been six and a half years In prison and fines of $25.000 each. Delightful Srn Trip to nnston and Provi? dence. C. &. O. Fnei' Train, leaving Richmond 1:10 P. M.. connects at Norfolk with M. &. M. T. steamers (or Boston and Providence. Must Comply or Be Placed in Receiv? er's Hands. GIVEN CHANCE OF RE-CREATION Decision Considered Harsher Than That in Standard Oil Case, but Court Is Lenient in Granting Time in Which Trust May Comply With Law. No Statement Till Text Is Digested New York, May UI>.?At the oin.ce? of the American Tolmcco Compnny It was Klvcn out thnt no atntrment would be forthcoming tau III tlic text of the ilcclslon hud been rend. W. YV. Kuller, chief counsel, snld thnt there would he n conference nmnng officials null other counsel, mid thnt after the decision bad been dlecsted, probnbly on Wednesday, there mlKht be nn official statement. Washington, D. C? Mnjr 28.?T?c government to-dny won n sweeping vic? tory over tbe so-called tobacco trust, when the Supreme Court ot the United StntCH held the Aiucrlcnn Tobacco Company and Its nlllced corporations to be operating In violation of the Sliermuu anti-trust law. IIy directing that the combination he forbidden the privilege of Interstate commerce or he placed in the bauds of a receiver unless It disintegrates In bar muuy with the law within alt or, at the most, eight months, the court Is re? garded to hnve dealt with the tobacco corporations more drastically than with the Standurii OH Company of New Jersey, whose dissolution was ordered two weeks ago. Doth the first and second sections of the Sherman anti-trust law have been violated by the so-called tobacco trust, according to the court. Not only has It, In the eyes of the court, restrained wrongfully and unlawfully Interstate com? merce, hut It lias attempted to mouoPollzc the tobacco business, to the injury of the public nnd of Its competitors. Decree Severe, hut Touch of Leniency Given. While the decree was regarded as unusually severe, at tbe same time there was a touch of leniency in not making the combination an outlaw "now." The various elements of the combination are to be given an opportunity, under tho supervision of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, of recreation, so that there may be brought a "new condition which shall be honestly In harmony and not repugnant to the law." The opinion of the court was announced by Chief Justice White, who also delivered the opinion of the court in the Standard Oil case. The entire court agreed that the tobacco combination violated the Sherman anti-trust law, but Associate Justice Harlan dissented from the repeated Interpretation of the Sher? man anti-trust law so as to call for the application Of tho "rule of reason" In determining what restraints of trade were forbidden by the act. In this respect the division of the court was the same as in the Standard OH case. Justice Harlan also took Issue with tho rest of the court as to the reorganization of the tobacco company, saying that he had found nothing In the record which made hlrrt "at all anxious to perpetuate any new combination among these compa? nies, which the court concedes at nil times oxerted a conscious wrongdoing." Court Determined to Fallow "Rule of Reason." The court relteratjd its determination to follow the "rulo of reason" In de? termining what restraints of trade violate the Sherman anti-trust law. Chief Justice White explained at length the decision of the court In the Standard Oil . case, but did not qualify the reasoning In that case so as to harmonize it in any particular with the dissenting views expressed by Associate Justice Harlan and by other critics of the decision. To-night It Is regarded as settled that the "fule of reason" will prevail throughout the land in the interpretation of tho Sherman anti-trust law until at least the personnel of the court greatly changes or the Sherman nntl-tj-ust law is amended. In reality, the decision will bo nothing less than a deliberate exemplification of tho application of tho "rule ot reason" to "undisputed facts." From the date of the organization of the first combination the court found that there was 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 tho trade, by driving competitors out of business. This purpose was carried out ruthlessly, according to the court, upon tho assumption that to work upon tho theory or play upon the cupidity of competitors would make success possible. Such action, viewed In the "light of reason," as regarded by the court, was vlolatlve of the law. Government Wins on Practically Every Point. On practically every point on which the government appealed from the de? cision of the lower court It scored a victory to-day. In the first place, James B. Duko and the twenty-eight other Individual defendants, were held to be par? ties to the unlawful combination, Instead of being freed from further responsi? bility In the case, as directed by the court below. Instead of dismissing the bill as to tho Imperial Tobacco Company, the so called British trust, and as to the British-American Tobacco Company, tho crea? ture of the two parent tobacco "trusts," these two corporations wore held to be' co-operators in the unlawful combination. So, too, was the United Cigar Storos Company, a retail organization, with stores throughout the country. The court confessed that great dlfllcultles had been encountered In the con? sideration of tho case because of the many new aspects of the anti-trust law which It presented. These difficulties extended to tho preparation of a satisfac? tory decree. In this connection the court expressed Itself as solicitous of pro? curing a remedy which would be complete and efficacious and yet result In as little Injury as possible, both to the public and the private interests Involved. The court believed that putting the matter In the hands of the lower court for the purpose of working out a method of dissolution ano recreation, with the understanding that unless the law was compiled with the combination must retire from interstate commerce or go Into the hands of a receiver, was tho bost solution of tho problem. Issuance of Mnndnte Stayed Thirty Days. Unlike the Standard Oil Company, which made no move to-day for a Tehear ing, William R. Perkins, as counsel for the American Tobacco Company, asked the court after the announcement of the decision for leave to present a petition and to stay tho Issuance of the mandate of the court for thirty days. The re? quest was granted. Shortly .after the court adjourned until next October. Chief Justice White's opinion may be grouped Into three parts. First, ha gave a detailed statement of the history of the case and dwelt upon what he designated as the "undisputed facts." Next, ho took up tho meaning of the Sherman anti-trust Inw and its application to the case at bar, and lastly he considered tho remedies to be applied. At the outset of his statement of facts he classified the sixty-live American co'rpornto defendants in throe groups. The American Tobacco Company, "be? cause of its dominant relation to the subject matter of the controversy." wns designated ns tho "primary defendant." The American Snuff Company, ths American Cigar Company, the Amerlcnn Stogie Company, the MacAndrews & Forbes Company and the Conley Foil Company were named as "accessory de? fendants." The fifty-nine other Amerlcnn corporations were denominated tho "subsidiary defendants." Tho two English corporations, the Imperial Tobacco Company and the Hrltlsh-Amorican Tobacco Company, as well as the twenty nine Individual defendants, headed by James B. Duke, remained unclassified. The "undisputed facts" In the. caso were divided by the Chief Justice Into two periods, tho one being from the time of the organization of the first, or old, American Tobacco Company, In lSOO, to the organization of the Continental Tobacco Company. In 1S3S, and the other being from the date of that organiza? tion to the beginning of the case under reyl-sw. More Comprehensive Application Needed. In! taking up tho construction and application of the Sherman anti-trust law, $ Chief Justice White said that If the law was applicable to the entire situation presented In the tobacco cose, and was adequate to afford rollef, "It can only be , because thai lnw will be given a more comprehensive application than has been ', j affixed to It In any previous decision." I The necessity of relief for so many aspects, the Chief Justice said, had evi ! dently led the government to resort to methods of construction which were ., j incompatible, nnd at the same time the defendants had not been nble to do much 1 better will) the situation. The dlttlcultles which arose, according to the Chief: I Justice, grew out of a plain misconception of both the letter and the spirit of |J8SM i i ';. jj -,i . ? :? ':.!.'!lPV.).Vrf?SS