Omaha daily bee., 1896-02-27
AMEND TINE ANrl-TRrsr LA,r

Tho antitrust law enacted In 1880 is
practically dead letter. The few
efforts that have been made tu enforce
1t have been unsuccessful. The supreme
court OF the United States has in effect
declared the law to be inadequate. II
has been pronounced defective by the
, present attorney general and his prCde-
ccssor The law should either be re-
pcalrt. since it is worthless in its
present form. or so amended rs tc bc
made effective. aud such amendment
being practicable IL is the duty of con-
grcss to make il without delay. so that
the power OF the government for the
suppression of trusts and m0nopollSttc
combinations may be properly and eff
fcctive!y cxcrtrd.
Attorney General Harmon. In his re-
cent reply to Il congressional resolution
relating 10 the antitrust law, said that
as construed by the supreme court That
act does not apply to the most complete
monopolcs acquired by unlawful com
bination of concerns which are naturally
competitors. The power of congress to
regulate Interstate commerce may bc
extended to the products of these com
binatlous entering into commerce.
between the states but this Is
not done by the antitrust act Of 1890
and the attorney general stated that
the Limitation Of the present law en-
ables the combinations to escape from
both state and federal governments. the
former having no authority over inter
state commerce and the latter having
authority over nothing else. 1t was
further said that several Of the circuit
courts have held that the Sherman anti
trust law. which uses general terms
with no attempt to define them. made
nothing unlawful which was not unlaw-
full before but merely provided punish
ment for such agreements and con
spiracics against trade and commerce
as the courts have always refused to
enforce between the parties. The result
has been doubt and uncertainty and
the failure of the law to accomplish its
purpose. The attorney general sug-
gcStcd an amendment which shall leave
no doubt about what is meant by mon
opolies. by attempting to monopolize and
by contracts. combinations and con
spiracicS in restraint of trade of com
mercc. also II provision to prevent the
refusal of witnesses to answer on the
ground of Standardization. 1t was
further suggested that the difficulty of
obtaining proof might be diminished. If
not removed. by enacting as Il rule of
evidence that the purchase or combina-
ton in any form of enterprises in differ
ent states which were competitive be-
fore such purchase or combination shall
be prima facie evidence of an attempt
to monopolize. A similar provision
should be made with respect to we'll
known methods of doing business
throughout the country. such as prac-
ticed by the Sugar trust, the Cigarette
trust and some others. which are de-
signed to deprive dealers of liberty of
trade and compel them to be instruments
of commercial conspiracy.
With these suggestions of the head
of the Department of Justice. evidently
the result of a careful study of the anti
trust law in the light of judicial de-
cisions, congress ought to have no diff
Guilty in amending that act so as to make
it effective within the limitation of con
gressional authority. which it appears
can go no further than to make it I'M
lawful for the trusts and combinations
to ship their products from one state to
another. But perhaps that would be
sufficient for their suppression and if
not there could be supplemental state
legislation that would insure the de-
sired result. Congress should act in
this matter at the present session and
the republicans of the house could do
nothing more certain to benefit the party
with the masses of the people than the
passage of an antitrust law which could
be enforced.