The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-12
'KlNLEY AND THE TRUSTS.

why Suouiu HTeSluent mckinley dis
semble on the trust question? He
might as well come out and endorse
them, just as Hanna has. Everybody
knows that if the president wanted to
remedy the trust evil he has the power
and the machinery and the law and the
opinion Of the supreme court within his
reach.
In his last message the president adj
mits that trusts are dangerous combin-
ations of capital; he quotes from the
act of 1890 to show that they are un-
lawful; the supreme court handed down
an opinion on the very day his message
was sent to the senate, showing that
prosecutions of these unlawful COM
binations in restraint of trade" are not
wasted. Yet Mr.. Mckinley retains a
trust attorney from the trust-breeding
state of New Jersey as attorney gem
eral for this government. If the presi-
dent were sincere in his depreciation of
the trust evil. he would rid himself of
Attorney General Griggs and re-peruse
the opinion of the supreme court.
@ @ g
The case in court was brought undel
the provisions of the antitrust act OF
1S9o-which the local Republican organ
has falsely asserted time and again had
been repealed or abridged. An injunc-
ton had been asked by independent
manufacturers of iron and lead pipe, to
restrain six corporations engaged in the
manufacture of all kinds of gas and
water pipe from continuing to do bust
ness under the agreement by which
they had divided the territory of the
United States among themselves, and
by which they had arranged to fix
prices.
The complaint was that such a COM
bination was not only violation of the
constitutional clause regulating inter-
state commerce, but direct transgres-
sion of the law of 1890.
The supreme court held that "the di-
rect and immediate result of the combi-
nation was necessarily a restraint upon
interstate commerce in respect of ar
ticles manufactured by any of the par
ties to it to be transported beyond the
state in which they We're made. The
defendants by reason of this combina-
ton and agreement could only send
their goods out of the state upon the
terms and pursuant to the provisions
of such combination. Was not this a
direct restraint upon their interstate
commerce in those goods? If dealers
in any commodity agreed among them
selves that any particular territory
bounded by state lines should be fur
nished with such commodity by GER
tain members only of the combinations.
and the others would abstain from
business in that territory, would not
such agreement be regarded as one
in restraint of interstate trade? If the
price of the commodity was thereby
enhanced (as it necessarily would be-,
the character of the agreement would
be still more clearly in restraint of
trade"
This is a very different view from
that of Chairman Hanna-a conclusion
which leaves the president in a most
ridiculous pose as he wrings his hands
in the presence of the monster and Won
ders what he shall do to be saved The
answer of the supreme court is: En-
force the law"
rs there any substantial difference"
asks the court, where by agreement
among themselves the parties choose
one of their number to make a bid for
the supply of the pipe for delivery in
another state, and agree that all the
other bids shall be for larger sum,
thus practically restricting all but the
member agreed upon from any attempt
to supply the demand for the pipe or
to enter into competition for the bust
ness
It is folly for these combinations, or
for their attorneys. or for the president.
or for his attorney general. TO say that
the object of the trusts is not to oper-
ate in restraint of trade. to regulate |
interstate commerce. or 10 crush COM
petition; and the court says SO in about |
so many words.
They uhe trusts and their repre- |
intended to make the very
and agreement which they |
in fact did make. and they must be held |
to have intended the necessary and di- |