The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1899-06-08
Republican Record on Trusts.

1t is the Republican party, not the
Democratic, says the st. Louis Demo
crat, that has legislated nationally
against trusts. A Democratic Con
gress never originated any antitrust
law, but law of this nature has been
greatly weakened by Democratic
votes. Thus stands the official record
of Congress. Republican administra-
tions have acted in restraint of trusts.
Democratic administrations have
either done nothing or undermined
the Republican statute passed for
trust restriction.
Many Democrats who are shouting
for an antitrust campaign next year
imagine that they have turned up a
new issue, and one in which their
party is not handicapped by past mis-
deeds and blunders. They are mis-
taken. As far as Congress has acted
ON this question since 1890 the Repub-
lican policy has been to prohibit
monopolistic business combinations
and the Democratic policy to oyer
throw the antitrust provisions passed
by the party they antagonize. These
facts will surprise many Democrats
now so enthusiastic over their new
found issue. But the truth of the
matter is imbedded in the laws of the
country, where comparison is easy,
and in the reports of Congress, whose
accuracy is unchallenged.
In the Mckinley tariff law of 1890
is a section to the effect that Every
contract, combination in the form of
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in
restraint of trade or commerce
among the several states, or with
foreign nations, is hereby declared to
be illegal" A person infringing the
law was made liable to fine not ex-
ceeding $4,000, or imprisonment for
one year, or both. The same penalty
was provided against any person at
tempting to form such combinations.
This law was passed in 1890 by Re-
publican votes, every Democrat and
Populist in both houses of Congress
voting against it.
By the election of 1892 the entire
political control of the country passed
to the Democrats. In 1894 they put
through the Wilson bill, repeating
the Mckinley law of 1890, and vitality
modifying the antitrust sections re-
ferred to, giving it free trade bias
and affecting exclusively trusts en-
gagged in the importing trade, oi
which, as a matter of fact, there are
none. The Mckinley law of 1896
made all trusts engaged in interstate
commerce illegal. The Wilson law OF
1894 cut this out, every Democrat
voting for and every Republican
against the change. When the Ding
ley law was under consideration Re
publicans wanted to restore the anti
trust sections to their original form
but they had no majority in the
Senate, and found it impossible tC
reinstate the law.
Any fair minded person who viii
compare the Mckinley law of 1885,
with the Wilson law of 1894 will set
the radical change made in the anti
trust clauses. The Republican Law
restrained all trusts; the Democrat,
law narrowed the whole subject tC
importers Of foreign goods concerned
ia trusts. 1t was the Republican pur
pose to destroy the trusts. Th'
Democratic object was to destroy tn,
protective idea and to charge upoI
protection the development of trusts
Since the Wilson law was passed tn,
Republicans have had no majority il
both houses until the election Of thu
present Congress, which has not ye
assem- bled, and will not meet unit