The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1889-12-07

tire people.
Meantime, the all-devouring and
triumphal procession Of trusts has
swept across the field of American
industry, and 10, a hundred years
more have vanished, and Mr.. Bel
lamy and the select circles that ac-
cept him as their prophet, warn us
that in ten years the American peo-
pie will have to chose between plu-
tocracy and naturalization, and that
thanks to the unintentional work OF
these monopolies, the close of the
nineteenth century will now witness
our complete regeneration according
to the gospel of socialism.
LEGISLATION, ACTUAL OR PROPOSED.
Let us now consider briefly some
of the actual or proposed legislation.
The Congressional committee that
Investigated trusts failed to agree
upon any definite measures, but sew
eral of the States have already put
upon their statute books laws for
the suppression Of trusts.
The common principle of all these
laws, as far as / have examined, is to
make unlawful and punish by fines
and forfeitures all combinations for
regulating the price of products or
for limiting the quantity. The State
of Missouri took the lead in this leg
islation. Its law, in addition to the
general provision just stated, forbids
corporations to own and issue trust
certificates, and also forbids corpora
tions, their officers and stockholders
to enter any combination the purpose
or effect of which shall be to place
the management of the combination
or of its manufactured product in
the hands of trustees with intent to
limit professor to lessen production or
sale. The Secretary Of State is au-
thorized to revoke the charter of any
corporation that becomes member of
a trust, and to guide him in the prop
err exercise of this authority he may
require the proper officer of any in
corporated company doing business
in the State to answer, under oath,
whether the corporation has merged
all or any part of its business in any
trust OF the operation of this law,
l am not in position to speak def
nitely. Gov. Francis, writing soon
after it's enactment, said that it
seemed already to have broken up
some combinations, and to have pre-
vented the formation of others that
were proposed at the time it was ap-
proved. Very similar to this in
their general character were most of
the bills introduced into the last
Congress. Perhaps the most widely
known of these, as it was one of the
earliest, was the bill introduced by
Mr.. Rayner. 1t was aimed at com
binations between corporations or
individuals residing in one State or
Territory with corporations or in
dividuals residing in another State
or territory, and declared it unlaw-
full for them, either directly or in
directly through trustees, to combine
any interests, franchises or proper
ties for the purpose of effecting or
equalizing prices or preventing COM
petition.
Other bills, including that of SEN
ator Sherman, already alluded to,
were still more minute and compre-
hensive in their prohibitions, even
to the extent of imposing severe
punishment on all who enter into a
trust or like combination.
1t will be noted that all these
measures are very sweeping in their
prohibition of combinations, while
the real offense aimed at is combina-
ton with intent to form monopo-
lies. 1t may well be considered
whether they can be successfully en-
forced, and if so, whether they may
not invade the domain of liberty or
impinge on what are now accepted
as sound economic principles. In
their reach after combinations which
are detrimental to public interests
and contrary to public policy they
may apply to many Indifferent,
harmless or even beneficial agree
ments that no one may wish to affect
or prohibit, and thus reproduce the
rigors of the old English statutes
that have been repealed or swept
aside in the growth of trade. Eng
lish courts have gone very far in re-
cent years in vindicating the free
dom of contract, doubtless reasona-
bly, reasoning that England's free
admission of foreign products was
her sufficient defense against home
combinations to establish monopo-
lies. But more than a century ago,
when she did not have this defense,
Adam Smith expressed the opinion
that it was impossible to prevent
meetings of traders for the purpose
of combination by any laws which
either could be executed or would be
executed with liberty and justice
In his profoundly instructive
book, just issued under the title Re
cent Economic Changes Mr.. David
A. Wells says:
Society has practically abandon
ed and from the very necessity of
the case has got to abandon, unless
it proposes to war against progress
and civilization, the prohibition of
industrial concentrations and combi-
nations. The world demands abun-
dance of commodities and demands
them cheaply, and experience shows
that it can have them only by the
employ of great capital on an
extensive scsle.'
He states the difficult problem now
presented to society for it's solution
in this form:
To the producer the question OF
Importance is, How can competition
be restricted to a sufficient extent to
prevent its injurious excessesY To
the consumer, How can competition
be restricted so as to secure its adj
vantages and at the same time curb
it's abuses?
ROOM FOR ESCAPE.
| But aside from the economic criti-
cism of such sweeping legislation, ii
is to be considered whether, in the
long run, it could be enforced. Re
curing to the structure of trusts, as
explained in former papers, the ques-
tion may be raised whether the deeds
of the Standard Oil and the sugar
trusts were not drawn with an eye
to this regulation, and if so, whether
these great typical trusts could not