The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-05-16
The KETTLE SUES HHT POT
aVD avs pHR pFIgSGF HgISs
TOt' va 4 AFffIE.

Vhen the ausas Tvust iBsmaWtea seHi FvsWs
me Wtvtshet fguat aaya the WNtskey
vywst ssss teuss We tasas Nv aesssseu,
" Traas and Va Dus't pat GstateH
A suit ,bs, ought 10 la,stes, MI ths ioes
n monopoly has Iuat bsen decided BY
Justice uruenlaum ~ the sfpfsfns Court
II vas q oaas ~ trust feht tfUs, The
actual plaintiff vac th8 siaAs trust, but
the Nnit vas carried on In the hams " The
brooklyn Distillsry Company n ~eibaditfy
concsrn. The defendant was tho Standard
Disabling end Distributing Company, witch
10 better known 80 tbs whlsksy trust.
Tbs action aFoae over the noh.payment
~ reus of the plant Of the Brooklyn cJm.
pany, which has been leased 20 tho whiakey
trust. and tho amount involved was about
S3S0,OD. The decision was In favor o.
the sigar trust. The most remarkable
point in the cass was that the whiskey
trust sst UP a. part Of lie defence that the
lease was not binding, as /, was made In
restraint Of trade and TO prevent com-
petition.
The leass wasmade In July, isos, for three
years. This was about the time that the
whiskey trust was being formed. The
Brooklyn company had a large plant In
connection with the refineries Of the &
trust, In which spirits were TO 10 distilled
from -blackstrap." tbs ref ise Of sugar.
This was lea sed 20 the whiskey trust
through the efforts Of y. o. Matthiessen
OF the sugar trust, who was also one Of the
original underwriters OF the whiskey trust.
He gave II as his opinion that the Standard
company could not succeed II II went on
as originally proposed and did not nolud
the distilling company, which he and his
business associates owned.
After the lease was made the distillery
shut down and a Waterman was put in
charge. The. whiskey trust paid the rent
from July /, 1898, to December /. 1896,
and then refused to pay any more. When
the suit was brought the whiskey trust
set up in it's answer to the complaint that
the Brooklyn concern was leased out
Of business and that II was understood
by the owners that the plant was not to
lie operated. This, the defendant asserted,
made the lease void as offending public
policy under the ~anti-monopoly laws Of
the State. In support OF this the answer
pointed TO O CLAUSE In the lease which pro-
vided that a Waterman should be kept
day and night at the plant. This was clear
evidence, the whiskey trust said, that 1t
was understood that no spirits were to
be distilled at the plant, but that il was
TO be shut down In restraint Of trade.
This novel defence made the lawyers
for the Brooklyn company sit up and stare.
II was probably the first time that a trust
had fallen back on the ~anti-monopoiy
laws. In the reply submitted by Parsons,
Clausen d M~cIlvaine. attorneys for the
ex-Justioe william N. Cohen and Herbert
Parsons as counsel, they told the Court:
1T 10 difficult to restrain ones self when
the defendant sets itself UP as the cham
pion Of public policy and law. The or
ganization Of the Standard Distilling and
Distributing Company and the acquisition
by it Of the constituent properties took
place under the advice Of Mr.. Mayer and
Mr.. Cadwalader. II the transaction Of
Tended any law against monopoly the clients
Of these gentlemen became criminals.
'"' And to hold that the oombina-
ton thus formed may enjoy all the adj
vantages and eventually repudiate the
obligations is TO put a premium upon dis
honesty"
The Brooklyn company denied that there
was any understanding that the plant
should be shut down, and declared that
the only contract bet ween the parties
was the lease, which left both plaintiff
and defendant free to distill to their hearts
content,