Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-07-10
Antitrust Laws. State and NJ


The Star in some recent observations on
the subject of trusts said:
1T is all but the general agreement now
that, trusts are organized under state
laws. the states alone have the power to
restrain them At any rate, the remedy.
sought in that direction. Congress. which
has tried it's hand. has failed, and will
probably not try again
To this the San Francisco Bulletin makes
reply:
Since the enactment of state laws in
restraint of trusts are subject to the fed
eraI interstate commerce law, Congress
can hardly be relieved of all responsibility
for the existence of trusts. When state
law designed to restrain trusts infringes
upon the right of one state to send its
products into other states, the federal
courts declare it invalid. 1t is their duty
To do so under the Constitution. Two or
three states have enacted laws which deny
TO the products of trusts in other states
admission within their borders. Whether
or not such a law will stand the courts
only may determine. If the courts should
declare it invalid. some action on the part
of Congress might be required.
THE restraint of trusts is problem
which the best minds in the country should
seek "A solution of. The monopoly of indus
tries which these combinations aim at can
not be permitted, 1t seems. therefore that
our esteemed Washington contemporary is
somewhat hasty in relieving Congress from
all responsibility for the continuance Of
trusts. II is not good politics for journal
which is supposed to reflect the views OF
the administra ton to admit that the fed
eral government has no power to restrict
trusts"
The Star did not assume, and does not
now assume to state the case from a legal
point of view. 1t has no legal opinion to
offer. 1t merely recited a fact The anti
trust law passed by Congress has proved
to be wholly Ineffective, and leading law
yers all over the country are of opinion
that if the matter is to be dealt with Sue
ceSSfully at all the states must do 1t. This
opinion has been widely accepted, and is the
basis of the cali which Governor Sayers of
Texas has issued for a conference of gov
ernors and attorneys general TO be held at
ST. Louis early in September for the pur-
pose of discussing ways and means for state
restraint of trusts. The Star hopes for
large attendance at that conference, and
for substantial results from it. And If it
should be discovered then that Congress by
some new act may aid in the good work.
The Star will join the Bulletin in urging
that such an act be promptly passed.
The Bulletin errs in introducing politics.
The question of trusts IS not political. 1t
cannot be dealt with on partisan lines. The
organizers and conductors and beneficiaries
of the trusts are to be found in both of the
great political parties. Nothing will ever
come from approaching the subject from
the view point of what may or may not be
good politics. Mr.. Havemeyer by attack
ing the protective tariff tried to make the
trust question POLITICAL but he failed COM
pletely.
And the Bulletin is respectfully informed
that The Star does not in this or in any
other matters assume to speak for the adj
ulinistration. IT speaks only for itself