The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-03-26
CANNOT TOUCH THE TRUSTS.

J AN MI IOCCH M L II ~ Va
Attorney General Griggs has eX-
| planned the limitations of the Sherman
antitrust law with considerable clear
ness. He says: THE Sherman trust
| act does not give the federal courts
| jurisdiction over any combination con-
shutting a restrain and monopoly of
| trade. unless such trade is what is
| known as Interstate or international
| trade and commerce. A combination
or trust for the purpose of maintain
| ing monopoly in the manufacture Of
! a necessary of life is not within the
| scope Of the Sherman act, and cannot
! This was decided in 1894, iE the case
Of the United States against the COM
| bination of sugar companies. All the
companies " a " now organizing for
the purpose of securing complete or
partial monopoly Of different branches
of manufacture are similar to the sugar
trust, and are not within tie iurisdjc-
ton of the federal courts. If amena-
BILE to any law. they are amenable 20
! the laws of the respective states"
| Thus the chief law officer of the gov
eminent throws upon the several states
the entire burden of suppressing and
regulating the trusts. The importance
of this opinion Cfor it is only an opinion
expressed in a private letter though
probably with the understanding that
it would be made pubLl, scarcely need
| be emphasized. Aside from the issues
arising from the Spanish war, the trust
movement constitutes the most promi-
nent public question of the hour. If
| Attorney General Griggs' implication,
that the states must look after the
trusts. were conclusive, there might be
some satisfaction in his statement, but
il is not. A state is prohibited from
discriminating against the products of
other states. The utmost it can do is
to annul the charter of any trust
that may be organized under
Its own laws. This is a poor cor
rectiNe, however, for the trust simply
moves into another state reorganizes
and carries on its business as before
even in the state from which It has fusl
been driven. Hence. the propo-
sition to control the trusts thro1oh fine
action of the individual states does not
seem altogether hopeful 1t is useless
TO md fault with the attorney. general
Tor his opinion, as some have done
since he has only reported the decisions
rendered by the supreme court before
the present administration came into
existence He does not even saw that
the states can handle the question but
mat If there are any statutes anpIica-
pie 10 the case, they are state laws. NOT
federal. - "0'
Another proposed solution of +be
problem is to institute quo warrarto
proceedings, it being commended that
Tue common law amply covers the stu
atlon' and no legislation is necessary
mat IS a common process for stopping
inc usurpation of public office or cor
porate franchises. The trusts vo,,16
then be called upon to show bv wbs+
warrant they have undertaken to az.
laplisE a monopoly, and the decix,o,
would turn upon the question whetbe,
or not they were acting against The
pubic welfare and in contravention OF
sound public policy. What objections
lhere may be to taking the trusts or
TINS tack, lawyers can best saw, II
would be a radical measure. and The
popular feeling of hostility will have te
De made to appear stronger than it now
Is before the law officers of the states
or the nation will be likely to under.
take it,
1t is to be borne in mind that trusts
are not exclusively American i7sfitu.
tons. England has them in numbers
but there is less agitation than in the
United States The business amman,
to have been very much overdone here
and 1t may be that the movement oar
ries its own antidote. The collapse Of
several inflated trusts would be ant to
serve as strong deterrent, but wdpld
at the same time be q sore dsapnoInt-
ment to the socialists, Who see in the
trade combination mania the first stem
| toward state CONTROL