New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-05-02
AGAINST TRUSTS
THE SENATE MEASURE PASSED BY LIE
uorsE WITH ONE DISSENTING VOTE.
LANG AND SCATTERING DEBATE-Nh' Di''-'' .


enate hill relating 70 trusts, liouso p',' o "
convrghts, House bill relating 10 ,r,Ia
such other bills as the commi,'co ma, . rho roso
order 10 be in force today ana 10 i'oi -
o' - Ao,.od. and the House, IN ACCORDANCE
- a. ,r,s proceeded to consider the senate Dill
A., nro.ect trade and commerce against restraints anu
monopoles. srocatod the hill II
Mr. CnIberson OF Texas adVoca'cu '"e WI, j"
confined ITSELF he said to SUBJECTS wv a@ $3.50
.s confcssedly no question OF inc power vi congress
$500. - did not invade any doubtful ground
" |s 70 . ~, nor could any man know until the
question had been determined 10y ''o oo'i's' "na'
ontr.c,s wouM be covered by the terms OF the Dill.
W. ~, Mo- If Massachusetts,, inquired what effect
.,a hin would have upon the manufacturers Oh pro-
.-,o.arv articles who fixed their own price,
~, Cuherson replied that, in his opinion. If the
-.,suan from Massachusetts sold his Rising sun
stoye polsh to the retailer under contract that the
,cailer should sell at fixed price ana receive com
riSson this contract would be in restraint of trade
Mr. Rl,tterworth, Of Ohio inquired whether the bill
.ould operate against Chicago firm which furnished
,sat IN a butcher under contract TO sell at fixed
mice and subsequently set up another butcher with
authority to sell at lower price, in order to freeze
out the first
Mr. Culberson thought that it would; but that
was question to be decided by the courts. If Con
cres would egslate within its sphere and if the state
Legislatures would do their duty and supplement that
legislation, the combinations which were devouring
the people of the country would be crushed out.
The states were powerlcss unless Congress would
tale charge of the trade between the States.
Mr.. Henderson, of Iowa, said that it had been
stated before Congressional Committee that com
hnation in Illinois had reduced the price of cattle from
ene-third TO onehaf, and at the same time had been
able to keep up the price Of every beesteak eaten at
The table of the consumer. Would the bill hit that
combination?
Mr. Culberson thought il woud.
Mr. Henderson-Does the bill go far as the const
tutional power Of Congress can gol
Mr. Culberson-That is my opinion.
Mr. Wilson, of West Virginia, criticised the majority
for It's method Of conducting business. The rules were
so administered that no member could tell what
measure 10 be brought up for the days delbera-
ton Here was bill bristing with pains and
penalties making criminal acts which today were not
criminal deranging the course of trade among the
states introducing doubt and dstruSt into business
yet the House called upon to put it on the statute
books, without deliberate or intelligent discussion,
when the gentleman in charge Of II (Nr. Culberson)-
as learned and able lawyer as there was in the
House-said time and again that it could be inter
preted by only the courts.
A trust bore the same relation to a combination
that the United states Government under the Con
stuon did TO the old Confederacy under the Articles
Of Confederation. a combination a voluntary
association, carrying with it the element Of weakness
and dsintegraion; but trust was legal cOnsolida
ton of property, and the legal concentration of con-
most deadly blow at trusts must not from Con
gress, but from the States The States gave the
charters What was the cause Of trusts in this
tryl 1t was only when the power OF production out
stripped the power of consumption that trusts
For congested market and overproduction there
only two remedies: One remedy was commerce; the
other was trusts.
Mr.. Funston, Of Kansas inquired what the law was
which prevented American farmers from exporting
their products now.
Mr. Wilson replied that when the first tariff bin
introduced In the House the proposition made TO
impose a duty Of cents gallon molasses Tic
members from Massachusetts opposed this proposition
on three grounds. Some were opposed TO placing
burden on the poor people who consumed molasscs,
Others wanted molasses free a material. and
third class said: "Why. trade fish for molasses
If you keep out molasseS you keep in fish," Uauelcr)
prosperous country should invgorate every channel
of industry and make it flow with greater copiouSnesS
but by warning against commerce Congress would
compel home productions to form combinations and
trusts in order to do with the surplus products
and bring down the production to the needs Of the
people.
Mr.. Adams, of Illinois, inquired whether the gentle
mans argument that the tariff stimulated
production that it led to overproduction.
Mr.. Wilson answered that, having stimulated the
production the tariff ponsbe for the necessity
of the formation Of trusts.
Mr.. Adams inquired what article affected by the
tariff had shown tie development of trusts in large
degree and what articles imported from abroad showed
That trusts did not apply.
Mr. Wilson instanccd the Sugar Trust.
Mr. Adams inquired whether that trust had not
been formed because competition in the manufacture
Of sugar could not have a legitimate result in tins
country.
Mr. Wilson replied that there could not be a trust
in anything that could freely come in from abroad
1t would be all idle thing to attempt to form
trust in Illinois.
Mr.. ButterwOrth, of Oho-Unlcss the OF
supply limited
Mr.. Wilson agreed with this suggestion. The sup.
ply OF Standard oil was limited. SO also was tho
supply Of anthracite coal These natural trusts
There was the possibility Of trust when the sup.
ply was limited by natural causes and then the
Republicans came in and limited the supply by pro-
hibitive legislation.
+. r. TAYLOR of Ohio. said that where the
tariff operated most largely there trusts.
There was none In the iron industry there mono
In the woOllen industry; there in the
cotton Industry In regard to the pending BILL Mr..
TAYLOR said that it went az far a. any legislation
which could be passed under the COnstt; lion. Ii
must be supplemented by legislation by the states
Mr.. Cannon. Of Illinois. believed the pending bill
to be good one.
Mr.. Bland. Of missouri. offered an amendment
maklns unlawful any contract or AGREEMENT 10 pre-
'ch' competition in the sale or purchase Of any
""SpoIteu from one STATE 10 another. lie
'ia' lhis amendment would strike at the
heei Trust Of Chicago without leaving if 70 court
TO decide. - 80 ~
NJ :, '.'n' OF Tennessee. favored the bill.
lr mckinley inquired how much the Mills bill had
benefited the sugar Trust
sa '''''uH replied that it reduced the duty Oh |
strnc,,"n " Ti-'oooOOO; but IL did not 20 10 the dc
o ~ aoh Oh the industry leaving te dutv .ono
Mr. ' Me- NJ mat would benefit the trust "''''
cent We pivtt lou gave the reners sixtenths Of
tl-
duty and we were merely making reduction Of
but YOU renes TX 70 get large from sugar;
and Tho or every duty YOU sacrincc the revenLe
Mr. Ma, 'nhg you leave intact is the sugar Trust
House for not ~ Illinois, criticised the last Democratic
and combines "Irn.ile passed bill 10 prevent trusts
Jusaboo to fried enc e, Democrats used the trusts
WAS why tbeT a ule Farmers into their ranks. That
prevent trusts "'' want the Republican party 10
said against tr1,' Oh Ohio, remarked that what
Trusts nnI -. l..1..