The herald., 1897-09-29
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1907.
TRUST DEFENDERS AGAIN

1t begins to look as if the trusts, either
in an organized effort or through sin
gularly expressed community of inter-
est, had entered upon a campaign of
education with the view to prove that
monopoly is not as black as it is painted.
The Herald has already commented
upon the several articles by special
pleaders in behalf of the trusts. They
work along the same lines and of late
have strenuously asserted the unconsti
tutionality Of all antitrust legislation.
Several articles have been published
setting forth that antitrust laws are
. violation of that section of the consti-
tuition which declares that mo state
shall pass -. any law impairing the
obligation of contracts" The writer's
hold by inference that no state law
against murder Is valid if only con-
tract to commit the crime is previously
made. Great is the Contract. We can
imagine Shylock saying: "Is 1t not so
nominated in the 'Contract?"
David Wilcox, writing in the Septem-
ber Forum on the Unconstitutionality
of Recent Trust Legislation" pins his
faith to another section of the much
enduring constitution. The fourteenth
amendment to the constitution provides
that no state shall deprive any person
Of life, liberty or property without due
process Of law, nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protec-
tion Of the laws"
Wher one recalls that the fourteenth
amendment was reconstruction
amendment, proclaimed July 20, 1868,
and designed for the protection of the
new black citizens of the country, and
that it was ratified by the southern
states only under pressure, its applica-
ton to antitrust legislation sounds
tuition and the law apply to all citizens
alike. Havemeyer, Rockefeller and
other trust magnates are entitled to the
same protection that Is given the ex-
slave of the south and his children. But
the men who wrote that amendment
never dreamed that monopoly would
attempt to craw, behind it. The maga-
zine writer should have quoted the
whole of the section he counts upon SO
confidently. 1t reads:
All persons born or naturalized in
the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the
United States and of the state where
In they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or mmunities of citizens of
the United States.
Then follows that part of the section
quoted by the writer in the Forum.
The constitution Of the United States
was designed as a protection against
tyranny and to guard against the con-
centration Of too much authority or
power in any one citizen or any class of
citizens. If the fathers had dreamed
even that monopoly would become the
evil it has grown to be, the constitution
would have held a provision against it.
The American colonists rebelled
against the tyranny of the mother king
dom. The United States has permitted
a power more dangerous than monarchy
to spring up in its midst; and now we
see that power attempting to hide be-
hind the constitution.
What does this flood of apologies for
defenses of monopoly mean? Is it not
Z, fair to presume that the way is being
paved for an attempt to secure through
the supreme court Of the Urited States
an Interpretation Of the constitution
that will give the trusts still greater pow
err and rivet the industrial and finan-
.cial shackles they have put upon the