The Whiskey Trust. 
141 
gress to a consideration of the question, how far the restraint of 
those combinations of capital commonly known as trusts is a. 
matter of Federal jurisdiction. When organized, as they fre¬ 
quently are, to crush out all hostile competition and to monopo¬ 
lize the production and sale of an article of commerce and gen¬ 
eral necessity, they are dangerous conspiracies against the public 
good, and should be made the subject of prohibitory and even 
penal legislation. ” 
The Senate measure entitled “ A bill to protect trade and com¬ 
merce against unlawful restraints and monopolies ” was adopted 
by the House. It provides that “every contract, combination 
in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of 
trade and commerce among the several states, or with foreign 
nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who 
shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or con¬ 
spire, with any other person or persons to monopolize any part 
of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with 
foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, 
on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding 
$5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both 
in the discretion of the court. ” The other sections provide that, 
suits may be brought in the Federal courts to restrain violations 
of the Act, for forfeiture of property used under any contract or 
by any combination or pursuant to any conspiracy mentioned in 
the Act, and for private remedies for persons injured by the for¬ 
bidden acts perpetrated by the classes against whom it is di¬ 
rected. 
The first important decision occurred in connection with the 
proceedings against the “ Distilling and Cattle Feeding Com¬ 
pany, ” better known as the “ Whiskey Trust. ” Certain offi¬ 
cials of the combination were indicted in Massachusetts for vio¬ 
lating the Federal Act. In the District Court of the Northern 
District of Ohio, application was made for a warrant to remove 
one of the defendants to the former state for trial. Although it 
was shown that the company controlled seventy distilleries, or 
three-fourths of the distillery products of the country, the court 
decided that there had been no violation of the law, and there- 
