Delaware gazette and state journal., 1899-12-07


question how far the restraint of those
combinations of capital commonly
called trusts is matter of Federal jur-
isdiction. When organized, as they
often are, to crush out all healthy
competition and to monopoiize the Fro
duction or sale of an article of COM
merce and general necessity they are
dangerous cunspiracies against the
public good, and should be made the
subject of prohibitory and even penal
legislation.
An act to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and mon
opolies was passed by Congress on the
I'd of July, 1890. The provisions Of
this statute are comprehensive and
stringent. 1t declares every contract
or combination, in the form Of trust
or otherwise, or conspiracy in the
restraint of trade or commerce among
the several States or with foreign
nations, to be unlawful. 1t denomi-
mates as criminal every person who
makes any such contract or engages In
any such combination or conspiracy,
and provides punishment by fine or
Imprisonment. 1t invests the several
circuit courts of the United States
with jurisdiction to prevent and re-
strain violations Of tho act, ana makes
il tho duty Of the several United States
district attorneys, under the direction
of tho attorney general, TO institute
proceedings in equity to prevent and
resti ain such violations. 1t further
confers upon any person who shall BIO
injured in his Eusipess or property BY
any other person or corporation by
reason OF anything forbidden or de-
clared to be unlawful by the act the
power to sue therefor in any circuit
court OF the United States without
respect to the amount in controversy.
and to recover three-fold the damages
by him sustained and tho costs of the
suit. including reasonable attorney fees.
IL will be perceived that the act is
aimed at every kind of combination
in the nature of trust or monopoly
10 restraint OF interstate or inter-
national commerce.
The prosecution by tine United States
of offences under the act OF 1880 has
been frequently resorted to in the Fed
eral courts. and notable efforts in the
| restraint of interstate commerce., such
as the Trans Missouri freight associa-
| tion, and the joint traffic association.
have been successfully opposed and
| suppressed.
President Cleveland, in his annual
message Of December 7th, 1896, mere
than six years subsequent to the enact.
ment of this law, after stating the
evils of these trust combinations, says
Though Congress has attempted to
deal with this matter by legislation,
| the laws passed for that purpose thus
| far have proved Ineffective, not because
of any lack of disposition or attempt
| to enforce them, but simply because
| the laws themselves as interpreted by
the courts do not reach the difficulty.
| If the insufliciencies of existing laws
can be reinedied by further legislation,
it should he done. The fact must be
recognized, however, that all Federal
legislation on this subject may fall
short of its purpose because of inherent
obstacles, and also because of the
complex character of our.goyernmental
system, which, while making the Fed
eral authority supreme within its
sphere, has carefully limited that
sphere by metes and bounds which
cannot be transgressed. The decision
of our highest court on this precise
question renders it quite doubtful
whether the evils of trusts and monopo,
lies can be adequately treated through
Federal action. unless they seek directly
and purposey to include in theil
objects transportation or intercourse
between States or between the Unitec
States and foreign countries.
1T does not follow. however, thai
this is the limit of the remedy thai
may be applied. Even though 1t ma,
be found that Federal authority is no
broad enough to fully reach the case
there can be no doubt of the power o
tho several States to act effectively il
the premises, and there should be Mt
reason to doubt their willingness t.
judiciously exercise such power.
The State legislation to which Presi
dent Cleveland looked for relief fIou
the evils Of trusts has failed to accom-
plish fully that object. This is prob
ably due to great extent to the fac
that different States takes diferen
views as to the proper way to discrimi
nate between evil and injurious com
bipations and those associations whiol
are beneficial and necessary to tn
business prosperity of the country. Th
, great diversity of treatment in ditferen
States arising from this cause and th
intimate relations of all parts OF tn
j country to each other without regard
ing State lines in the conduct of bust
1 ness have made the enfol cement G
. State laws difficult.
1t is apparent that uniformity of leg
I islation upon this subject in the sew
Q elal States is much to be desired.
is to be hoped that such uniformit
Q founded in wise and just discrimina
r tion between what is injurious an
b what is useful and necessary in bus
: moss operations may be obtained an
o that means may be found for the Cor
: gress within the limitations of its cor
4 stitutional power to so supplement a
s effective code of State legislation as {
make complete system of law
y throughout the United States adequai
to compel general observance of tn
salutary rules to which l have referred
The whole question is so importar
# and far reaching / am sure no part
i. it will be lightly considered, but ever
: phase of it will have the studied delit
d GRAFTON of the Congress, resulting
j wise and iudicious action.
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
In view of our relations with foreip
d States is presented with such recon
a mendations as are deemed appropriate
= The long pending boundary disput
n between the Argentine Republic an
# Chile was settled in March last by tt
d award OF an arbitral commission, @
l. which the United States Minister /
/ Buenos Ayres served as umpire.
J. Progress has been made toward I'll
"a conclusion of a convention of extri
dition with the Argentine Republic
n Having been advised and consented
"a by the United States Senate and rat