The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-06-12
THE WHISKEY TRUST WINS.
OFJTCTiLS MAI NOT RE COMPELLED TO
90 TO BOSTON FOE Trial
Judge jackson Holds In Cincinnati Thnt the
BOSTON Indictment IL Not Lawful Upon
Observation-Disclosures Grounds as to the
Requirement OF Property

| Boston Indictment IL Not Lawful Upon
| Extrn-Ccn .titutionnI Grounds as TO the
Requirement OF Property.
Tho officials OF the Distilling and Cattle
Feeding Company OF Peoria. known as the
Whiskey Trust. won victory in tho United
states Circuit Court to-day before judge
Howell +. Jackson OF Nashville. and Judge
Samuel Kicks OF Cleveland.
Tho trust officials havc determ ined to fight
the Antitrust law Acting President Lewis
II. Green declined to give $4,000 bond be-
lore United states Commissioner John
| l.. Bruce for appearance in Boston to
| answer to the indictment returned In
tho United States Court there against
himself and others OF the company for an al
legged violation Of tho Sherman Antitrust
law. The case was sot for n hearing yesterday
| Mt 10 o'clock on an application for n writ Of
| habcas corpus
| Thewrit was granted by Judge Jackson. md
! this morning Treasurer W. Hobart OF the COM
pany. and acting President Green. with their
attorneys. Elihu Root OF New York. William NJ.
Ramsey of this city. and Thomas Thatcher Of
| New York went into court with long and
| carefully prepared brief for petition relating
| TO the application for removal of tho prisoner.
| Nhio Mr.. Root was arguing. Judge Jackson
interrupted with The decision.
Tho Government was not heard at ALL Mr..
Greene was dismissed on his own recogni-
! zanco to appear from day 10 day to await fur
Their action He will not have to go to Boston.
judge Jackson was very pronounced in his
opinion regarding tho case and the indict-
ment. which he pronounced very bad one.
Now here is the trouble" said Judge Jack
son in his decision. that has been running
through tho mind Of one member OF tho court.
| This property WAS acquired In February. 1890.
SO the Indictment alleges 1t came un-
nsTs That Ws inon Tor Lawful nY u Sas
t ths ot n9is SO far as n
"pratd e contrS the he basness 'M
law TO declare It Illegal 2.
" !Tn So, should think" said Mr. Root:
does not ean,an as snther r 'S reads
each count thereof. any charge that showed an
ILLEGAL restraint OF trade, Neither. count
! contract between the Boston purchasers and
the di,tl!lins companion tho defendant. Meth
jurc anybody else. The first. third. and fourth
counts Spnn tGs se II it tnds then
monopoly, The boston people have nothing
to do with the question Of monopoly: the hos
tn as do moi @ueh that The The
,h%, cnj"%ment Of this property. "" which. they
net. II that is what the law means. one mem
i her Of the court n would be prepared 70 hold
toqsrSss or of any state eGi s "MSf to
nsG the Fa wa w aan ~4s sf is At s sS
would be the result Would these neonlc have ,
required. There is no conspiracy. because, these
d Of %y "ne % Srs e Of Ss With the
q conspiraey ut common law. The Tnss,
ton would Then turn on, the second
ing ourhs Of ths dse i %s'h IN oW the
CURED before the passage Of tho act. 1t would
My s1sse.t | sn ia" Mr s hoot that even
il this property had been acquired afterthe act
had passed: even if Congress undertook to
prevent the aeluisi,iGn 9f rroperty for such
to do so that is matter Solely With tns
Eurvew OF the. states. l maintain that
s 1ns nto the the n ptea S"Is
to determine the methods by which citizens Of
Ohio shall ac1uir" the tenure by which they
Congress has no power" replied the Court.
to put restraints and limitations upon the
Acquisition Of property: each may 60 and as
auire; all the prornrty the statute will
property which the individual may acquire In
proportion as every business is built M and
n popular sense. monopolizcs that bust
ness. If Congress meant to mako this
an offence II has no power to say So 1t had no
power TO enact such a law as that. What will
become Of it? All 81 the railroad con-
Solicitations ir the, country woull lcromc
monorOlics. through acting under Legislative
authority. All the acquisitions of property by
any individual who enlargcs and extends HE
business ANA takes in smaller or similar lines
of business in his lin" would become
Of july. 1880. meant that. Congress was try
ing to do something it could not do mani
testify There are restrictions upon the leEis-
ntive power o: both Congress and the States
that are not confined to III" constitutional
provisions and here you arc dealing with
those subjects that they have no power over
II it was II monopoly to own and acquire
this property before the passage of
the actor even aftcrward-I do not
think Congress could restrict it. do
not think it il necessary to 90 into tho nonsti-
tntionaity Of the act: but If it means what the
Government says it means. then the Court
would say il WAS utterly unconstitutional"
Judge Kicks Misc handch down II decision
in tho case " Warner II. Corning and julius J.
French. two OF tho directors Of tic company
residing in Cleveland.
The Judge in hnndinC down his decision. |
said that he had Withheld il unit! h. had heard
from Judge jackson. Judge Kicks denied tho |
motion for removal to Massachusetts Of tho |
defendants and discharged them from further
custody.