St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1892-10-15
The Whisky Trust Tndiotm ent.

A Circuit and a District Judge Of
the United States have united in
knocking the bottom cut of the in
dictment found recently in Boston
against the managers of the whisky
trust. Some of the parties concerned
live in Ohio. Bench warrants
were issued for their arrest
to appear and answer at Nos-
ton. They sued out writs Of
habeas corpus and In that way the
matter came before District Judge
Kicks at Cleveland and Circuit Judge
Jackson at Cincinnati.
The Indictment, which has four
counts, sets forth substantially that
before the passage Of the antitrust
law of July ., 1890:
The defendants obtained control
of seventy distileries and operated
them, so as to produce 75-IOOths OF
the total production Of the dlstilIeries
of the United States; that after the
passage of the act they continued to
operate said distiIleries on the same
extended scale; that part Of their
product was shipped to Massachu-
sets, to be sold there and for trans
portatiOn to other States and sold by
the defendants through their dis
tillery agents, dealers In Massachu-
sets, under promise on the part Of
the defendants that if said dealers
should purchase their distillerE prod
ucts exclusively from the distributing
agents Of the defendants and should
sell the same at prices not lower than
the list prices Of such distributing
agents and should, at the expiration
of six months, certify that they had
done so, then the defendants would
pay to all such dealers a rebate of >
cents per gallon on all purchases.
1t IS alleged further that these acts
constitute a combination in restraint
Of trade and an attempt to mOnOpO-
lie trade, and that therefore the
parties are guilty Of conspiracy. Both
judges agree that 1t is not enough to
say that a combination is in restraint
of trade to make it one, but that it
must be shown wherein it is 50. Some
act must be stated which IS relied on
to make the otfense. But there was
no aycrtment in the Indictment that
when the parties bought the diStll-
leries they own they bound the sellers
not to build others or not to carry on
the business in the future, nor that
they have made any attempt to con-
troll the remaining onc-fourth Of the
distilleries or to induce the owners TO
limit the output or agree on the
price. Nor was any illegality shown
in the rebate contract made with the
Boston parties. For these reasons
they hold that three of the counts
are bad.
The remaining count charged the
defendants with owing three-f0urths
of the distilleries in the United
States, they having acquired them
before the passage Of the law of 1890. :
The judges agreed that as there was
no law against those purchases when
made, Congress could not pass an eX
post factO law to make their owner
ship a crime. They agreed also that
Congress had no power to pass such a
law to apply in the future; that
Congress has no power to put re.
straints of limitations upon the right
of an individual or a corporation in
the acquision Of property. Each may
60 and acquire all the property that
the State of the residence or creation
will permit him or it to acquire.
Even the State cannot impose re-
straint in the amount of the property
which the individual may acquire
In proportion as every business is
built up and enlarged and extended,
1t more or less, in a popular sense,
the business. If Con-
grcss meant to make that an offonsa
they have no power to do so; they
had no power to enact such a law as
that"
That IS to say, the mere act Of buy
ing up distillery after distillely
would not in itself constitute an
Offense so long as no unlawful use
was made of the property thus aC-
1uired and the field was left OPEN to
others to start and run diStillerieS
and no unlawful attempt made to
crush them if they did 60 into the
business. The mere ownership even
Of all the distillerics would not Per
Sc be ain restraint of trade" any
more than the ownership of the soli-
tary dry goods store in a town would
make its proprietor a mOnopplist.
The above remarks of Judge Jackson
must not be taken as denying the
right of a State to limit the amount
Of property a corporation created by
1t may acquire; but simply that the
State cannot prescribe such limits 10
the individual citizen.
Hence 1t seems as If it would be
necessary for the District Attorney
ut Boston to draw up a new indict-
ment setting forth the acts done
by the whisky trust to restrain trade
n commerce or to mOnopOliZe the
business by unlawful means.
Queen Carol Offers a Prize.
~, nf fhn ,n0c+ iptnrlStinr NrivaG