The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-06-17

gal question WAS involved. and senators
should meet the issue here and now.
Mr.. Pettigrew said this antitrust policy
had been plank of the republican party
up to the time of the st. Louis convention,
when it was left out of the platform.
Whether it was purposely left out in be-
half of the trusts would be disclosed by the
vote today, he said. An opportunity was
| now at hand by the amendment to check
the rule of trusts and force them into dis
solution.
Mr.. Hoar of Massachusetts said he eX-
pected to do everything in his power to
check the evil complained of. But It had
no place in a tariff bill, he said. and should
be dealt with in a separate measure. He
trusted such measure would be devised.
Mr.. Hoar said he specifically objected to
, that feature of the amendment which per-
, mitted three or more men to form COM
bination and thus force the articles handled
by them on the free list. Three men in
Chicago might, he said. form cOmbina-
tion which would wreck 10000 woolen in
dustries of the country.
Mr. Faulkner of West Virginia insist
ed that the amendment would not bear
such a construction, and that the danger
pointed out by Mr.. Hoar could not arise
under this amendment.
Mr. Hoar declared that the amendment
was determination through and through.
, the widest imagination couched in terms
| like this, placing the commerce of the
whole country at the mercy of any three
| unprincipled adventurers.
Mr. Pettus (dem.) of Alabama said he
| begged his democratic associates to go
slow" on this kind of an amendment, tend,
| ing by ll-advised action to bring down all
classes of commerce and American manu-
| facturers. 1t was patterned, he SAID, at
| ter the Canadian law, but was wholly un-
| suited 70 our institutions. He sympa-
| thized with the aim of the amendment. for
we had become government by the trusts
and by money, and the governments heels
had been put on the neck OF this system:
| But in striking at trusts the mistakes had
not been made of destroying the entire
| manufacturing business of the country by
throwing it into the courts.
Mr.. Nelson of Minnesota pointed out
what he regarded as radical defects In
| the Pettigrew amendment although he
| supported the general principle of 1t. lie
said the amendment might result in cut
| ting off the revenues of the government.
1t would also place an entire industry.
outside of any trust, subject to pena ltles
| because some small trust was formed IN
that line. :,
Mr.. Melon said he had contemplated
urging an amendment empowering the
president to place articles on the free list
when he found that trust was producing
it. But he realized that the president
should not be subjected to this RESPONSE
bility. and he had determined not to press
his amendment. He said senators should
| vote down all amendments. pass the tariff
| bill and then turn their attention to some
effective remedy against trusts.
Mr.. Lindsay ironically pointed out that
it would be serious by this amendment
| to kill the sugar trust after the bill took
such care in this schedule to foster the
| trust.
Mr.. Allison again urged that the amend
ment ought to 90 over for the time being.
and he appealed to Mr.. Pettigrew to allow
this to be done, but the latter refused.
He said the objections were in the nature
of excuses. and the weakest of these had
come from the senator from Massauchu-
setts (Hoar). He maintained that every
objection could be met and that he was
willing to so amend his proposition as to
make it an effectual remedy against
trusts
In the course of his remarks, Mr.. Petit
grew referred to the rise in sugar stock
during recent days, whereupOn Mr.. Gear
(rep) of Iowa. said the sugar debate of
three years ago sent up sugar stock 40
points.
Il think" exclaimed Mr.. Pettigrew,
"that the two debates in sugar-nOw and
three years ago-Justify the existence of
Il new political party
Mr.. Morgan of Alabama pointed out
what he regarded as fatal defects of the
amendment. He regarded the existing
Sherman antitrust act, reinforced by the
recent decision of the United States SUI
preme court, as the real remedy against
trusts.
Mr.. Allison moved to lay the Pettigrew
amendment on the table. This speedily
developed something of breeze. Mr..
Chiffon of Texas moved an amendment
perfecting the procedure under the Petit
grew amendment Mr.. Allison had re-
mained standing. claiming the floor. Mr..
Chiffon yielded the floor to Mr. Faulkner,
who declared that the purpose of Mr.. ALI
sons motion to table was to avoid di-
rect vote on the trust proposition.
Mr. Allison hOtly resented this sugges-
ton and claimed the floor. Three sena-
tors were claiming the foor-Allison,
Chiffon and Faulkner. The president, Mr..
Gallnger. being temporarily in the chair
held that Mr.. Allison was entitled to the
floor. Senators asked to perfect the
amendment, but Mr.. Allison insisting on
testing the sense of the senate on his mo-
ton. the vote was taken, and the amend
ment was tabled-35 yeas. 81 nays.
The detailed vote was as follows:
Yeas-Allison. Burrows, Culom, Davis
Deboe, Elkins, Fairbanks, Foraker, Frye