Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1892-06-13
TIE ARGUS.
MONDAY, JUNE 10 1892
DISTRUST THE LAW
Partial Victory of the Great
Whisky Combine.
THE ANTITRUST LAW UNDER FIRE

Two Judges in Ohio Express Opinions
That the National Statute Is Not Valid
Indicted Whisky Trust Men Dis
charged from Arrest in One Case, and
the Decision Reserved in the Other
An Intimation That the Law Is Ex Post
Facto-Remarks of the Judges.
CINCINNATI, June 13.-Acting President
Lewis II. Greene of the Distilling and
Cattle Feeding company of Peoria, His,
Friday surrendered himself to answer
the indictment of the United States
grand jury at Boston under the anti
trust law. He was taken before United
States Commissioner Bruce and waived
examination. In default of IS, 600 bail the
commissioner committed the defendant
into the hands of a deputy United
States marshal. Immediately Greene's
attorney sued out a writ of habeas corpus,
f-turnable before the United States cir
cult court
The Case Comes Up Promptly.
With the application for the writ was
filed a petition alleging that the in
dictment charged no Grim for which the
defendant could be tried in Massachu-
sets. Greene refused to give bail and Sat
urday the writ came up before Judge
jackson. The argument of the case was
begun by Elihu Root, of New York, for
the defendant, and he was presenting the
claim for the defendant when Judge Jack
son suddenly, and against the expecta.
ton OF every one present interrupted the
argument with question that brought up
the direct issue and resulted in the dis
position of the case. The indictment was
under the antitrust law of 1890.
Was the Law Eek Post Facto?
The judge said: "Now here is the trou-
bic that has been running through the
mind of one member of the court. This
property was acquired in February, 1896
so the Indictment alleges-iU came under
one ownership for one business that was
then lawful under the legislature of Hi
nois, SO far as appears III the Indictment
Would not this act of July >, 1922 if it at
tempted TO affect such property or forbid
the holding thereof-no matter how mu ch
is operated to control the business in that
line-would it or not be an ex post facto
law to declare it Illegal
Is There Any Monopoly?
~The indictment does not contain, as l
gather from reading each count there. any
charge which shows an illegal restraint Of
trade. Neither count makes out a case Of
1llegality in the contract between the Bos-
ton purchasers and the distillery company
or the defendant, neither in restraint of
trade nor conspiracy to injure anybody
else. The first, third and fourth counts
are bad. If it stands then upon the sec
ond count, where IS the monopoly, The
Boston people have nothing to do with .nne
question of monopoly, the Bostsn pur-
chasers do not touch that question. The
question Of monopoly rei.Ces alone to the
ownership by these people, who are in the
enjoyment of tne property VIII ich they
acquired before the passage of the act.
Carnot Make the Legal Illegal.
1It Is not in the power of congress or of
any state legislature to make illegal what
was legal at the time that the thing was
done. Especially in respect to the owner
ship of property what would be the resultP
Would these people have to surren der that
property! That cannot be required We
will hear from the government on this
case. There is no conspiracy, because
there is only one party here that is charged
with the offense 1t is lacking of the ele-
ment OF conspiracy at common law.
Monstrous Proposition.
"The question would then turn on the
second count alone that charges them
with the offense of owning three-fourths
of the distilleries in the United States.
When that ownership was acquired before
the passage of the act it would be monst-
trous to say that there was crime. Those
are the points that we want to hear from
the government on. We will allow these
defendants to give their personal recog-
nizance to appear here to abide the order
of Judgment Of the court when called
for"
AMOTAEP hnMEpSE nEnIcLAkL