The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1899-06-15
pHaaIrmNe MONOPOLY

The Administration, through It's Off
cial legal adviser and mouthpiece. At
torney- General Griggs, has now com
mitted itself frankly and squarcly to
these propositions:
That the United States Government
cannot suppress or even restrain mon
, opoly by the use of existing laws.
| That the United States Government
has not the power under the Constitu-
ton to enact law which will sup
press or even restrain monopoly.
That Ito quote Mr.. Grigg's exact
language) "if monopolies are amena-
BILE to any law they are amenable to
the laws of the respective States"
The New York World says: They
are not amenable to the laws of the
respective States, because under the
Federal Constitution, as interpreted
by the Supreme Court in an unbroken
series of decisions, no State has a
right in any way to discriminate
against the products of any other
State, and, therefore, one State per-
mitting monopoly could undo and rem
der unconstitutional the adverse leg
islatlon of all the other States.
Mr.. Griggs and all lawyers know
well that even II the States had the
power to discriminate against the
products of other States, that power
could not he exercised without dis
rupting the Union. For the use of 1t
would lead to retaliatory legislation,
to interstate trade wars, to industrial
anarchy, and therefore ultimately to
political chaos.
Our own State Attorney General,
John @. Davies, is fair exemplar of
the State official attitude toward mon
opoly. When the Griggs "uncondi-
tiOnal surrender" letter was shown to
him he at once, as becomes good
partisan, accepted its conclusions as
final and took up the cry that the
only hope lies in State action. 81 do
not intend to shirk my duty" said he
"but amendment to existing laws are
needed to enable me to proceed"
PRECISELY More law. more legisla-
ton. and yet more legislation! More
CONSTRUCTION" and no convictions!
More loopsholes and no justice. Mr.
Davies well knows, as does the Attor-
ney- General of every other State of
the Union, that to suppress a manu-
featuring monopoly in any given State
no statute whatever Is needed, but
only quo warranto proceedings under
the common law.
Mr.. Davies also knows what mon
opolies do when they are driven from
n State. "The Sugar Trust" said he,
twas driven out of this State by one
of my predecessors, only to be organ
lied under the laws of New Jersey
and proceed with its operations here
and elsewhere"
And that is precisely what monop-
oily will continue to do as long as the
Attorney General of the United States
says, "In no circumstances can
touch monopoly" and the politicians,
eager for the campaign contributions,
echo and re-echo the disingenuous
and misleading cry that the States
can and must deal with monopoly.
VIII the people be deceived by this
juggling. Says Mr.. Davies:
There is no question which seems to
be attracting half the attention that
trusts are. 1t seems to be the live
topic everywhere. am in receipt of
letters from Governors and Attorney
Generals oil over the country asking
for information about our laws.
The people, as this trust-tied Attor-
ney-General cannot but admit, are
thinking intently upon this monopoly
question. VIII they not presently see
that 1t is national and is not and
cannot be made n State question? Will
they not suspect that there is "some-
thing rotten" in an Administration
that can find in the Constitution Sim
piled powers" for dominating remote
possessions. yet can find nothing there
In to restrain monopoly from dominat-
ing and industrially enslaving our own
people?