The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1899-06-08
The Republican Party and Trusts.


OWING to the widespread sentiment
against trusts, ard the fact that in
their search fer an issue the Democrats
are trying to unite on anti trust, the
/ question naturally arises, what is the
relation of the Republican party to the
trust? Amidst the general cutlery
against the monster combinations, as
much, at least, is heard in the Repub-
lican party as in the Democratic. This
universal hostility will make the issue
an important one. Thus far the Dem
ocrats have sought to monopolize it
What, then, is the position of the two
parties relative to the trust. We can
find no better answer than the follow
ing editorial taken from the st. Louis
Globe Democrat:
+" It is the Republican party, not the
! Democratic, that has legslated nation
ally against trusts. A Democratic
Congress never originated any anti
trust law, but law Of this nature has
been greatly weakened by Democratic
votes Thus stands the official record
of Congress. Republican administra-
tions have acted in restraint of trusts.
Democratic administrations have either
done nothing or undermined the Re-
publican statute passed for trust re-
striction. Many Democrats who are
shouting for an antitrust campaign
next year imagine that they have
turned up a new issue, and one in
which their party is not handicapped
by past misdeeds and plumbers. They
are mistaken. AS far as Congress has
acted on this question since 1890 the
Republican policy has been TO prohibit
monopolistiC business combinations
and the Democratic policy to overthrow
the anti trust provisions passed by the
party they antagonize. These facts
will surprise many Democrats now so
enthusiastic over their new. found issue.
But the truth of the matter is Embedded
in the laws of the country, where COM
parison is easy, and in the reports OF
Congress, whose accuracy is unchal-
lenged.
" In the Mckinley tariff law of 1890
is section to the effect that Every
contract, combination in the form Of
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, IN
restraint of trade or commerce among
the several states, or with foreign
nations, is hereby declared to be ille-
gall A person infringing the law was
made liable to a fine not exceeding
S., 900, or imprisonment for one year,
or both. The same penalty was pro-
vided against any person attempting to
form such combinations. This law was
passed in 1890 by Republican votes,
every Democrat and Populist in both
houses of Congress voting against it..
By the election of 1892 the entire
political control of the country passed
to the Democrats. In 1894 they put
through the Wilson bill, repeating the
Mckinley law of 1890, and vitality
| modifying the antitrust sections re-
ferred to, giving it a free trade bias,
and affecting exclusively trusts engaged
in the importing trade, of which, as a
matter of fact, there are none. The
Mckinley law of 1890 made all trusts
engaged in interstate commerce illegal.
The Wilson law of 1894 cut this out,
every Democrat voting for and every
Republican against the change. When
the Dingley law was under considera-
ton Republicans wanted to restore the
anti trust sections to their original
form, but they had no majority in the
Senate, and found it impossible to re-
instate the law.
| Foiu WI n mi
compare the Mckinley law of 1890 with
the Wilson law of 1894 will see the
radical change made in the anti trust
clauses. The Republican law restrained
all trusts; the Democratic law mar
roWed the whole subject to importers OF
foreign goods concerned in trusts. 1t
was the Republican purpose to destroy
the trusts. The Democratic object
was to destroy the protective idea and
to charge upon protection the develop
ment of trusts. Since the Wilson law
was passed the Republicans have had
no majority in both houses until the
election of the present Congress, which
has not yet assembled, and will not
meet until December, unless sum-
moned by the President. There are
strong indications now in Democratic
speeches and comment that the talk
against trusts is to be mixed up with an
attack on a protective tariff. The
trusts have to thank this free trade
game for their Wilson law windfall OF
1894, with it's changes in the law re-
lieving them from prosecution unless
engaged in the importing trade"
non NH nrrHn pitt DINO