Omaha daily bee., 1896-11-08
ANTI- TRUST LEGISLATI ON

nv iI-ihtSI LEpISiI 4 IoNs
The republican party enacted the first
antitrust legislation, the law of 1890
1t was the result of much careful con
sidcration and was passed after eX-
tended discussion. The belief of some
of the ableSt lawyers in congress was
that this act would prove adequate and
effective for the suppression of all com
binatiOns against the freedom of com
petition and for the restraint of trade
1t has not done so. The few efforts that
have been made to enforce it have come
to naught. Prosecutions instituted
against trusts during the Harrison ad-
miniStration and continued under the
present administration failed.
In the case of the American Sugar Re
lining company. the supreme court de
cidpd that the penalties of the antitrust
act of 1880 apply only to ii monopoly of
the inStrumentalties of interstate com
meTce. Referring to this decision, At
tOrney General Harmon said in COM
munication to congress that the act does
not apply to the most complete monopo-
lies acquired by unlawful combination
of concerns which are naturally cOmpeti-
tive, although these are engaged in in
terState commerce., that being an Incl
dent of their business and not its direct
and immediate object. Congress. in the
exercise of its authority to regulate com
mcrcc between the states may make it
unlawful for commercial combinations
Il, t.,tA ~. hon lint
this is not done by the existing law.
"rhe limitation of the present law"
said the attorney general, enables
those engaged in such attempts to es-
cape from both state and federal govern
mcnts. the former having no authority
over interstate commerce and the latter
having authority over nothing else"
The attorney general suggested that con
gress should clearly define what is
meant by monopolies, combinations and
COnSpiracies in restraint of trade and
commerce. He also pointed out, AS was
done by the supreme court, that state
antitrust legislation, supplcmenting that
Of congress, is necessary for the sup
preston of these combinations. As to
this the supreme court decision said
'''rhe relief of the citizens of each state
from the burden of monopoly and the
evils resulting from the restraint of
trade among such citizens was left to
the states TO deal with ana this court
has recognized their possession of that
power even 10 the extent of holding that
an employment or business carried on
by private individuals. when ii becomes
u matter of such public interest and
importance rs to create Il common
charge or burden upon the citizcn-in
other words. when il becomes IL practi-
cal monopoly to which the citizen Is
compelled to resort and by means of
which tribute can be eXacted from
The community. Is subject to regulation
by state legislative power" 1t is thus
apparent that with the states, rather
than with congress, Is the duty as well
as the power Of legislating against the
trusts.
But congress is not wholly powprlesS
in the matter IT may define what Is
meant by mOnopOlies, combinations and
COnsplracles In restraint Of trade ana
commerce and having done this ii may
make it unlawful for such combinations
to ship from one state 10 another
Such legislation, there can be no doubt
would be most effective against every
trust now in existence. The republican
party is committed by the law which II
enacted in 1880 TO the suppression OF
combinations in restraint of trade. AZ,
ter March next that party will be
again in control of the government