The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-11-20
MAY LEGISLATION REGULATE
TRUSTS BUSINESS?

Tho Southern Tobacco Journal, OF Mn
ston. y. C.. recently reviewed the sub
iec, of trusts, and in referring to IT'S
article. we asked IL TO tell us what rem
odv II had 10 suggest against the suppos-
cd injuries that immense and wealthy
industrial corporations like the Standard
oil Company and the American Tobacco
company do the public. The Tobacco
journal replies thus:
We suggest this as a remedy; OF It's
worth The Times editor. who is a law
yer may Judge: The States and the
United States regulate the charges OF the
railroads The railroads are chartered
common carriers. the trusts are charter
cd common purveyors. Why should not
tho government fix the maximum and
the minimum of the products OF the
frusts-the one 10 prevent them from
oyercharging the public. and the other
TO prevent them from selling below the
cost Of production in order 10 demorahze
and drive out competition?
The reason why this should not be
done Is that II would convert our whole
social organization into one vast camp
of socialism. II government is TO pry
into the business of wealthy corpora
ton and inspect its methods of business,
debating TO II what it shall give for
this and what IT shall ask for that,
the socialists principle is accepted as
the true foundation of government, and
we should necessarily 20 on step by step
until we had government prescribing the
hour at which the citizen should eat his
breakfast and the color of the horse ne
should ride when he went to the court
house
we believe an irreparable setback
would be given TO civilization and prog
ress II we should abandon the principles
of incorporation in business. But dam
aging as that would be. we had far rather
see the principle of incorporation aban-
doned than to see government undertake
ing thus to NEEDLE with the affairs of
the citizen. The Journal OF Commerce,
of New York. had leaCing editorial one
day last week strongly leaning towards
the Tobacco Journals suggestion. and
as the idea is brought forward thus for
discussion. II may be as well to glance
at the relations of our constitutional law
TO 1t.
II is very clear that the Congress OF the
United States is not authorized TO estab-
lish any regulation for the whole Union
such as Is suggested. The Supreme Court
of the United States decided in the Phil
adelphia case, at its last term, that
whatever Congress may do in respect TO
commodities when they come TO a State
line for passage across il. it can prescribe
no regulations whatever in respect 10
commodities that are in the hands Of
citizens of a State for disposition to
other persons in that State. Such regu-
lations az may be applied TO these must
come from the Legislature of that State
When we come to look into the rights
OF the state TO control the subject we
find this 10 be the state Of the law.
More than twenty years ago the Legis-
larure OF Illinois passed an act prescib-
ing the charges which the owners of an
elevator might make for storing grain.
A man named Mum. who had built mis-
own elevator on his own ground. and
with his own money, carried that law
70 the Supreme Court of the United
states. alleging that II violated the Four
teenth amendment to the Constitution OF
the United States by deprivig him OF his
property without due process OF law 1t
was decided that the law did make an
arbitrary invasion of Munn's rights.
but the Court sustained IL upon
the ground that the public had a
right 10 regulate all business in which
the public were interested: that storing
grain was business of that sort. and
that the law was therefore a valid law.
That stern old Democrat Mr.. Justice
Field. dissented. pointing out that the
principle would give the Legislature pow
or TO control all private business, and
that such proposition was socialism
pure and simple. The same ease ex-
actly came before the Supreme Court
again from the state of New York IN
1881 ,Budd vs. New York. lis L. $. II. SID.
when the Court reafirmed the doctrine
OF Mum VS.. Illinois. but by this time the
dissent had grown TO two justices. JUS
tice Brewer concurring with Justice
Field. The question came before the Court
again In 1893. in the case OF Brass VS..
stoeser. 1853 u. S. r.. 3sl when the doctrine
barely survived. Justices Jackson and
White Joined the dissentisnts. so that the
aoust stood ave 70 four. A. the DOCTRINE