The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1893-02-10
Confiscate the Coal.

Ex-United States Senator Edmunds,
the great constitutional lawyer, has
been interviewed in regard to the
power of the government to deal with
trust combinations. He is reported
to have said that the government can
legally seize every pound Of coal
shipped by the Philadelphia. and
Reading coal company across the
state line of Pennsylvania, if that
company is violating what is known
as the Sherman antitrust law. He
holds if the company named, Or any
other, has combined with another
company for the purpose of controll-
ing either the price or the output of
any commodity it is amenable to the
antitrust law, it's product is liable
to seizure, and it's principals to arrest
and imprisonment. There is nothing
in the claim by the trust that
the Sherman law is unconsti-
tutional. Every line was carefully
reviewed by the best constitution
al lawyers and every possible
feature that could be questioned was
stricken out. Then it was passed
unanimously by both houses. He has
not the shadow of u doubt as to the
constitutionality of the act. Mr..
Edmunds is equally decided as to the
breadth of scope of the measure. He
says it was intended to, and he thinks
does, cover every form of combina-
ton that seeks to in any way inter-
fere with or restrain free COMPETE
ton, whether it be capital in the
form of trusts, binations, rail
road pools Or agreements, or labor
through the form of boycotting Or
CARNATIONS that may say man shall
not earn his bread unless he joins
this or that society. Both are wrong.
Both are crimes and indictable under
the antitrust law. He says, too,
that if the law is enforced it will
smash the trusts. If the officers
charged with the enforcement of the
law do their full duty trusts and COM
binations will go to pieces as quickly
as they sprang into existence.
He added that unless they are
checked it is only a question of time
when between tyranny of capital on
the one hand and labor on the other
there will be no liberty for the peo-
worthy of the name. Though for the
time being the sugar trust may have
reduced the price of sugar and the
oil trust the price of oil, that does
not alter the principle that trusts are
wrong. However seductive they may
appear in lowering prices to the con-
sumner for the time being they are
destructive of the public welfare.
They come to be grinding tyran-
MES that have sometimes produced
riots in other countries. There is in
this language no uncertain sound. 1t
is plain and precise. It should be
convincing even to those who have
sought to grow rich by combining
against the people to crush out the
competition which is the life of all
business and an essential to liberty.
1t should revive the dropping spirits
of such of the government officials as
want to work for the suppression of
trusts, but have feared the law is not
sufficiently ON their side to assure
them success. They are now told on
very high authority that the only thing
necessary to the smashing of the
trusts is that these officials shall do
their duty. OF course this includes
the procurement of evidence to prove
the existence of trust in any partic-
lular case, as in the absence of that
the court cannot act. But in at least
some instances it would seem the OBJ
tanning of this evidence should not be
a difficult task. In the case of the
coal combination, has not it's trust
character been admitted by officers of
the combine? Have they not boldly
announced that they have combined
and intend to keep up the combina-
ton? Have they not practically
dared the government to do it's worst
by declaring the Sherman antitrust
law as unconstitutional? Surely this
is comparatively open case in which
the facts would hardly be disputed by
the defendants. They ought to be
given chance to prove that they
have not broken the law, and, if tho
fact of such breach can be established
against them their shipments of coal
across the state line ought to be
seized upon in the interests of tho
great public which have been leopard
lied by the nefarious com bination.-
Chicago Tribune.
The Owner Under.
A contemporary says: Fancy lot
OF us holding wheat, corn or pork for
higher prices, and as has been dem
onstrated thousands of times to any
one watching the market changes,
while we are holding, .non-owner'
is Offering to deliver cheaper in the
future, selling cheaper than our pro-
duct could be carried, paying interest,
warehouse charges and freight to
central market. What do we have to
do? Hold and try to corner them or
accept their fixed values? The latter
is generally the case, and the bear
on farm products gets his profit off
the decline he has made. If it were
not a profitable business there would
be no need Of law to prevent them.
When they profit who looses? All
unhedged Con the market) owners.
Practically every holder now hedges
hic Ouninrc oyconf tho rrO1uoo vb N