The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1899-06-15
Republican Record on Trusts.

Republican Record on Trusts.
1t is the Republican party, not the
Democratic, that has legislated nationally
against trusts, says the St. Louis Globe
Democrat. A Democratic Congress never
originated any antitrust law, but a law
of this nature has been greatly weakened
| by Democratic votes. Thus stands the
/ official record of Congress. Republican
administrations have acted in restraint of
trusts. Democratic administrations have
/ either done nothing or undermined the
, Republican statute passed for trust re-
4 striction. Many Democrats who are
I shouting for an anti trust campaign next
year imagine that they have turned up a
/ new ISSUE and one in which their party
is not handicapped by past msdeeds and
blunders. They are mistaken. AS far as
! Congress has acted on this question since
1890 the Republican policy has been to
prohibit monopolistic business combi-
nations and the Democratic policy to
| overthrow the antitrust provisions
passed by the party they ahtagonze
These facts will surprise many Demo-
Gratis, now so enthusiastic over their new
found issue. But the truth of the matter
is inbedded in the laws of the country,
, where comparison is easy, and in the
reports Of Congress, whose accuracy is
unchallenged.
In the Mckinley tariff law of 1890 is a
section to the effect that Every con-
tract. combination in the form of trust OF
otherwise, OF conspiracy, i'll restraint of
/ trade or commerce among the several
States, OF with foreign nations, is hereby
declared to be Illegal A person infring-
, ing the law was made liable to a fine not
, exceeding s., 600 or Imprisonment for one
year, or both The same penalty was pro-
vided against any person attempting to
form such ordinations. This law was
passed in 1890 by Republican votes, every
Democrat and Populist in both houses
of Congress voting against it. By the
N4SSAlCA4 VI AC.'- pOiitibtti toillIC VI
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 section
referred to, giving it free trade bias,
and affecting exclusively trusts engaged
in the import trade, of which, as a
- 60 Tho M
kinley law of 1890 made all trusts en-
gagged in interstate commerce illegal. The
Wilson law of 1894 cut this out, every
Democrat voting for and every Repub
lcan against the change. When the
Dingley law was under consideration Re-
publicans wanted to restore the antitrust
sections to their original form, but they
had no majority in the Senate, and found
it impossible to reinstate the law.
Any fair minded person who will com
pare the Mckinley law of 1890 with the
Wilson law of 1894 will see the radical
change made in the antitrust clauses.
| The Republican law restrained all trusts :;
| the Democratic law narrowed the whole
| subject to importers of foreign goods
| concerned in trusts. 1t was the Republic
can purpose to destroy the trusts. The
Democratic object was to destroy the
protective idea and to charge upon pro-
lection the development Of trusts. Since
the Wilson law was passed the Republic
cans have had no majority in both houses
until the election of the present Con
| gress, which has not yet assembled, and
will not meet until December, unless
summoned 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 relieving them from
prosecution unless engaged in the import
ing trade.