The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1899-10-04
TUE TRUST CONFERENCE.

The outcome of the recent Trust
Conference in Chicago will be disap-
pointing to many by reason Of the fact
that nc plan was proposed by which
trusts could be regulated, or, if neces.
sary, abolished; the convention taking
the ground that it had no right to take
a stand upon the subject. While, of
coulse, II is understood that the con-
vcntion could do nothing that would
have any binding effect upon parties or
people, it would not have been uncXpcct-
ed, or beyond the scope of the purpose
for which it vas called together, after
four days of talk and debate, for it to
have formulated some plan or made
some suggestions on the question
which Is of such absorbing interest to
the people of the United States. We
suspect that the disappointing outcome
was the result more of politics than
any doubt on the part Of the convcn-
ton of its power TO advise. With one
Presidential possibility actively engage
ed in its proceedings, and representa-
tives 81 the two great political parties
sparring for points, and to prevent one
party from getting advantage of the
other, perhaps 10 other result could
have been looked for. We believe,
however, that good has been accom-
plishcd in the line Of agitation, and
further in the ampliiication Of the fact
that the political parties will only take
action on the subject as they are com
PEELED to by the people. We have no
doubt that both parties will vigorously
dcnounce trusts in their platform.
Talk is cheap. But no decided, effect
i've action will be taken by either of
the parties, except as c~rystallzcd pub
lie sentiment compels them to.
The main speeches in the owen
ton were made by w. j. Bryan and
Burke Cochran, and it Is interesting to
note that while these leading represent
tatives of two diverse wings in one of
the great political parties, disagreed as
TO methods, they agreed rs to the right
of the people TO regulate the trust; and
regulation means much, when properly
interpreted and applied. Mr.. Cochran
would look to the State Legislatures
for The power of regulation, while Mr..
Bryan would appeal to both the Nation
and the States. The %lattcr's plan in
substance is as follows:
First-That the State should have
the right to create whatever private
corporations the people of the State
think best.
Sccond-That the State has, OF
should have, the right to impose such
limitations upon an outside corporation
rs the people of the State may think
necessary for their protection. That
protects the rights of the people of tho
State To say, first, what they shall or.
ganlzc III their State as a corporation
and, second, what they shall permit as
a corporation to come from other States
who do business in their State.
Third That the Federal govern.
ncnt has or should have the right tc
impose such restrictions as Congress
may think necessary upon any corpo"
alton which does business outside oil
the State in which it is organized. In
other words, | would preserve to The
!, people OF HE State all the rights they
now have, aud at the same time have
Congress exercise Il concurrent remedy
to supplement the State remedy
When the Federal government Ii
ccnscs a corporation TO do business,
outside OF the State in which il was or
gained, 1T merely permits it to do bus.
mess IN any State, under the conditions
imposed by the original charter.
without indorsing these propositions
we submit there are several good point,
in them that are worthy Of considcra,
rion. They involve and concedc the
tight of tic government, State or Ma.
tional, to exercise such a supervision
| nvnr 4 ,I1StS &c ,,n,,1i Al,->..I, Ill L..
gcrous or offensive features from them.
such rs watering of stock, secrecy OF
operations, crushing or buying up Oh.
position, and other methods by which
the trusts have attained their present
enormous powers.
There is another means of reaching
at least a portion of the trusts, those
whose products come in competition with
the products Of other countries. That
Is by repeating or suspending the tariff
on all foreign articles which come in
competition with articles produced by
the trusts. We are aware that ia
making such a suggestion we are tread
ing or dangerous grond. Without en-
dorsing or condcmning protection, OF
saying whether or not it is responsible
for The formation of trusts in this
country, there is no disputing the fact
that it places in the bands of the gov
eminent a formidable weapon with
which to fight the trusts or a portion
of them. And without compromising
It's position on the tariff question as a
political principle, there is no reason
why, IL the interest of the people, the
party in power should not enact such
legislation as should withdraw from all
trusts the incidental protection which
the present customs laws grant to them
against foreign competition. This is II
plain proposition, easy of application
and would be effective in its results
Practical Farmer.