New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-20
VUISKEY Trust MEN ANSWER.
THEY MOVE TO QUASH TIE INDICTMENTS FoUNI
AGAINST THEM IL BOSTON.

Boston, March 19-Thc Whisky Trust officials fled
to-day in the United States District Court motion
TO quash the Indictment found against them. Prc'i-
dent Grcenhuts motion to quaSh is a. r llows.
And now comes Joseph Grccnhut and by leave Of
the withdTws hi, plea % not guilty To- the IN
begun and holden the second Tuesday of December
1891 and move, to qu.sh the said indictment for the
MS That tie said Indictment Is indefinite and
uncertain and does not plainly or substantially ana
formally prescribe the offence or offences Tor "hcn
the defendant is held to answer a.
Second-That The said indictment does not sum
ccntly inform the accused OF the nature ol INC o"cnoc
Thrd That the said Indictment does not charge any
offence created by described IN any statute OF INC
United states.
Numerous facts II f set forth alleged which tho
Grand Jury doubtless deemed 20 constitute some crime
but they not say what crime they consider 1t 10 PC
The defendant conecturcs that the Grand Jury thought
him guilty Of some offence under the act Of Congress
entitled: An act to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and monopoics' passed
Iuly = 1880: but whether he IS right In his con
lectures or, II he IL right whether he IS being
prosecuted for a violation OF the frat section OF
that act as 70 restraint OF trpdc.
or under the second section rs TO sn"opolles
or under both. he is not Informed. The Indictment
does not charge any offence described In the first sec
ton Of the act bausc IL docs not alege thai any OF
the contract. set firth I'm restraint OF trade or
commerce among the several states or with foreign
ma ions A. there Is charge In the words OF either
section aud the nature Of the offence Is lett Wholly 10
implicatIon or indictment the Grand Jury may nave
considered that one offence t. BE- infcrred from the
facts stated and that tie trial court may think those
fc,s constitute an entirely different offence and the
defendant must prepare his defence without knowing
either for what he was indicted for what he Is 10 be
tried.
The Indictment moreover. falls n charge any OF
fence under the first section Of tho act Of July :, 1890
a.. sfe dot dante fiaun-
elvcs made any contract within the meaning Of the
st,tutc II does not charge any offence within the
second section OF the statute because IT ds not charge
that the defendant mOnOpolzed anything. ana also De
cans. IL doe. acgc that what they are charged with
mouopolzng 10 the corporation WAS trade or com
mercc.
Il u. Ut forth that the t.cs alleged In said indct
,cut do not ttuc Any offence against the laws Of
,hc United states They would be insufficient 10 SuS
tain a charge Of criminaty under any section 81 the
act Of July - 1890 In thrce respects among Others
Frat. The contracts set forth are not ~ re
-traiut Of trade, and The sofalled IohH1t td, ,Sy
il not MONOPOLY within the meaning OF that statute
Int IN merely he law nj u.c Of private property.
second. Assuming The act alleged To amount 10 "
strdnt Of trade, or to be monoppiS ne
trade or commerce among the several state M WIZ
by ard ans offence which may hhN" Utsh I"'', ,,
Is neither within the enactment nor 'he I'si'N'''''
Third Tine facts alleged slow that the persons who
made the contracts set forth and who m"noponL"u
trade II that were dOn: not ANY o the u'lcnuiiHS
INT the pistillng and Cattle Feeding company .
Finh. That the act entitled: " An Ac 10 prO'c' I
rradc and commerce again't unlawful restraints anu
mouopDlirs" passed July - 1880, 10 not "lthlh we
Uowcr- Congress, and + unconstitutional ana Hp'
sixth That the offences charged In The 7Iln III
dciment Of any. not committed IN the o'a' vi
district Of Massachusetts, and this court has no Ju'ls
dicton to try the same. , H., .. i.u,
ms objection l. not applicable under me view ,
which defendants counsel are most Inclined 10 Iiho
rs to which 81 the acts described constitute w.
gpyamcn Of the offence supposed to be charged b,i'
there are other possible Views under which ,he 90
icctions would apply aud considering the INDEFINITE
ne,, and uncertainty Of the pleading counsel dec'N
il their duty 10 state the objections. - -
Each Of the defendants, George j. GlosQh, Lr"l1
n o,rccnc Julia g. French. Warren Corning feter
I IIeune-sy Herbert /. Terrell and Nlllahi hOpcr'
W;rrcuhut excepted i'd demurrer 10 inc au1
stance II the indictments. The denurrcrS are al
Ike the following:
And the said George J. Gibson In his own proper ~
IN cone,h into here, and having h"id the Huo
ment read SAYS that aid indictment and the n"'
therein contained IN and form are as above So
and set forth are sufficient In law ana mat e s"u
Gcorgs J. Gibson not bound by the laws OF t'o '"1 "
| .n.ver IN. sane and this he j. ready IN "tify'
Wherefore for want Of sufficient Indictment 10 u''
bhaf the sad &, orrc j. Gibson prays judgment 1hu Iua'
y ,s Court he may dismissed aud discharged from nv
| ,rouisc. in aid indictment specified