Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-10-18

things will or should the people of this
country be satisfied
The seriousness of the problem cannot
be overstated, and our hopes of its sue
cessful solution lie in the candid and honest
consideration of the great people At pres
ent it is much the fear of what may
cur dissatisfaction with the results of
what has occurred which is the just basis
of the public desire for legislation.
The hesitation which some honest men
feel in advocating legislation for the dis
solution of trusts as diStingu, shed from
their regulation arises from the belief that
the trust Is but an unpleasant sep towards
a better condition of society, and that the
by government which will preserve for the
consumer a reasonable portion of any adj
ditional saving in cost which continued CO.
operation may create.
Government May Interfere.
The claim that there does not exist an
inherent right in government to control
these combinations is one which cannot
be admitted. TIE right of government to
interfere with and regulate monOpolies is
well recognized in law and practice. The
laws forbidding combinations in restraint
of trade, the laws regulating rates Of cor
pOratiOnS acting under granted franchises,
and other laws of similar character all
have their foundation in public necessity;
and in the public necessity for protection
from abuse, present or prospective, arising
out of the existence Of a monopoly in any
line of trade, lies the legal and equitable
foundation of the right of public inter
ference.
This government is based upon the rights
of the individual. The great strength and
growth Of the American people has largely
resulted from the recognition of individual
rights; and it IS indicative of the rapid
change in commercial conditions that but a
short time ago many Of those who now
most earnestly advocate the passage of
la restricting and cpOtrOllinpr p1robin1-
tons feared that the passage of laws de-
signed to curb them might result In undue
Interference with rights of the individual
Our courts have carefully considered the
relation of such laws to those rights of the
individual which we hold so sacred. and in
this connection can do no better than to
quote the words of Judge Finch of the
New York court of appeals, in the case in
volving the sugar trust. He says:
IT Is not sufficient answer to say that
similar results may be lawfully accom-
plished; that individual having the nee
essary wealth might have bought all these
retineries, manned them with his
chosen agents, and managed them "a a
81 oup at his sovereign Will; for ii Is one
thing for a state to respect the rights Of
ownership and protect them out Of regard
to the business freedom of the citizen, and
quite another thing to add to that posi-
bllity a further extension of those cOnse-
quenceS by creating artificial persons to
aid in producing such aggregations. The
INDIVIDUALS are few who hold in possession
peril 1t all in a manufacturing enterprise;
but II corporations can combine and mass
their forces in a solid trust or partnership
with little added risk to the capitaI already
embarked, without limit to the magnitude
OF the aggregation, a tempting and easy
road is opened to enormous combinations
vastly exceeding in number and in strength
ana IN their power over industry any pos
sfbilties of individual ownership: and the
state, by the creation of the artificial per-
sens constituting the elements of the COM
bnation and failing to limit and restrain
their powers, becomes of itself the respon-
sible creator, the voluntary cause of an as-
gregation Of capital which it simply en-
dures in the individual as the product of
his free agency. What 1t may bear is one
thing; what it should cause and create Is
quite another
In considering the question of remedies
ana the means through which they should
De sought, the difficulty of securing uni
formity of state legislative treatment en-
phaszes the necessity of additional federal
laws upon the subject. There seems at
present an inadequacy of federal law and
the federal legislative powers should be in
Voked. In Congress, rather than in state
legislatures, lies the hope of effective legis-
latlon which shall relate to the enforced
regulation or disintegration of ST oh existing
combinations as may already practically
control certain lines of business Let us
trust that Congress will now take lp this
great question.
The Interstate Commerce Law
| ton with the consideration of the remedies
for abuses of trusts by Congress laws
should be passed protecting existing COM
petition from unjust and unfair discrim-
| nations which result from infrac tions of
| the interstate commerce law
The interstate commerce commission in
its report says: There is probably no one
thing today which does so much to force
out the small operator and to build up
those trusts and monopolies against which
| law and public opinion alike beat in vain
as discrimination in freight rates"
The Importance of the reform in law
which shall give the interstate commerce
commission power to prevent those dis
eliminating rates which do such injury to
small shippers is increased by its essential
connection with the questions involved in
the attitude of government toward the So
called trusts and the problem of the proper
method of protecting the public from the
evils of trusts which Congress must face
In this new field of legislative effort 1t is
unwise to venture rash predictions or offer
| ill-considered and impracticable remedies
The important thing now is to start and
| to start right, toward the solution of these
questions.
AS the proper modification of the inter-
state commerce law will inevitably become
one of the precedents for governmental
dealing with other monopolistic corpora
| lions, 1t is one of the logical starting points
| for congressional and public effort in the
| solution of present industrial questions.
Let this start be made, and may Congress
give Its most earnest and conscientious
thought and effort to the more general and