Omaha daily bee., 1897-03-21
GRAPHING WITH rHE TRUSTS.

GRAPHING WITH THE TRUSTS.
The suppression of trusts and com
binations in restraint Of trade has he
national and state legislatures have to
deal. The initial steps toward breaking
up combinations that prevent competi-
ton were taken by congress In the en-
ctncn of the Sherman antitrust law.
Experience has shown that law to be
defective in many essential particulars.
These defects the present congress will
doubtless endcavor to remedy. Whether
congress can be induced to strike at the
most vulnerable parts Of trusts engaged
I'm interstate is, however.
problematic. The trusts always have
had and probable always will have
powerful backing in the national legis-
lature, and it is only through q thor
oughly aroused public sentiment that
their Influence can be overcome.
one Of the vulnerable points at which
congress should aim is the patent right
monopoly. \ majority of the trusts con
troll valuable patents which enable them
TO establish and maintain m~onopolics
that absolutely prevent competition.
This applies particularly to trusts and
combines that own and control the mod
ern labor saving inventions and appli-
anccs in general use, such as the Bessc-
mer steel process, electrical devices of
every description and machinery for the
manufacture of all sorts of articles. If
congress were to enact n law that would
cancel every patent right owned or con
trolled by n trust upon proper proof
that its use was in restraint of trade a
majority of the trusts now in operation
would be dissolved. Suppose, for ex-
ample, that proofs were produced to Il
court of competent jurisdiction that the
sugar trust had absolute control of pat
ented machinery, devices or processes
in its refinerics, would not the cancella-
ton of these patents prove fatal to The
continuance of the trust? The same
would be tru of any trust that derives
its greatest profit from copyrights. Sup
pose the school book trust were deprived
of its exclusive copyright of text books,
would not that alone open the field to
successful competition by dcpriving the
trust of its greatest advantage over ON
petitors?
After all, however, laws cannot be
made sclf-enforcing. The responsibility
for the failure of antitrust legislation
is due not so much to defects in the law
rs it is to the indisposition of the law
officers charged with prosecuting the
trusts to discharge their duties fear
lessly. Even the Sherman law would
If properly enforced make it almost i'm
possible for trusts to survive. What is
wanted more than anything else to make
antitrust laws effective is prosecuting
attorneys who will prosecute, court Off
GERS who will not permit juries to be
packed, and courts that will so interpret
the law as to block the evasion of its
penalties on technicalities Without
such law officers all the legislation con-
grcss can enact must remain a dead
letter.
What Is true of national antitrust
laws applies with equal force to state
antitrust laws. Many of the states al
ready have stringent statutes to prohibit
trusts and combinations. Few if any of
the states, however, can boast law Off
GERS inc law courts that can be de-
pended on to prosecute offenders and
enforce the laws already enacted. And
this Partially to lawless corporate COM
bines will continue until the people
themselves see to it that no law officer
who shirk his duty is retained in office.