Washington sentinel., 1899-04-22

Antitrust Laws In Most States
The antitrust laws on the statut
books OF the various States are c
little practical effect in suppressinI
trusts than if they were merel.
resolutions passed by the Ancien
Order Of Has Bsens. Lawyer
will tell you that this is becaus
those antitrust bills that were no
drawn in bad faith were subse
quently so tinkered in committe'
in the interest OF the trusts tina
they cannot be made to do tina
which they so eloquently protest
to do.
A lawyer who has made All an.
alysis Of the trust laws finds them
very weak. In New York the
special antitrust statutes are not
effective. Chapter 3S3 oftte Laws
OF 1897, which professed to be a
blow at trusts, has been found un
constitutional and void by the
courts. This statute started out
with the following clear and VIII olly
proper declaration Of principles
Every contract, agreement, arrange
ment or combination whereby mouop'
oily in the manufacture, production or
sale in this State OF any article or
commodity OF common use is or may be
created, established or maintained, or
whereby competition in this State in
the supply or prl"e OF any such article
or commodity is or may be restrained
Orprevented. or whereby for the purpose
OF creating, establishing or maintaining
a monopoly within the State Of the
manufacture, production or sale of any
such article or commodity, the free
pursuit in this State of any lawful
business, trade or occupation is or may
be restrained or prevented, is hereby
declared to be against public policy,
illegal and void.
The upsetting Of the law as un-
constitutional did not oveTturn the
legality of that paragraph, for il
merely recites the common law OF
the State under which trusts are
illegal and void. But no proc eed-
ings are had under the common
law.
AS to the antitrust law in Illi-
noiS, it is frankly conceded that it
is worthless. 1t was dra wn purely
for political effect, was tinkered BY
friends ol the trusts, and was sub
jected to specious amendments,
disguised as a concession to the
labor vote. These amendments,
lawyers say, make the law uncon-
stitutional, inasmuch as they ex-
empt combinations having the
effect OF raising wages, and that
point destroys its application as a
general law. A new antitrust law
is progressing through the Illinois
Legislature. 1t is almost a copy
Of that in force in Indiana, which
the Governor and Attorney Gen
eral OF Indiana say is not effective.
1t covers every business except
such as is carried on under the
building association and home
stead acts OF Illinois.
Ohio passed a law less than
year ago prohibiting the issuance
Of trust certificates or the making
OF agreements to prevent competi-
ton. Persons connected with
trusts forfeit $50 a day to the
State. If on notice from the
Attorney General a trust is not
dissolved, all those connected with
it are guilty Of a misdemeanor. and
may be fined from $50 to $1,000.
Any one injured by the operations
OF trust may recover twice the
amount OF damage and the costs
of the suit.
The Indiana law enacted in 1897
the State authorities think worth.
less. An effort to amend it so as
to make 1t effective failed in the
Legislature.
The Minnesota law imposes a
penalty of from S 90 to 81 900 and
Imprisonment from one to ten
years on those who form a trust,
but though it was passed in 1891
there has been no prosecution
under it. The State Supreme
Court has sustained the principle
OF combination.
The Michigan statutes bar trusts,
whether formed in or outside the
State, and inflict penalties OF from
$Ioo to $500 and Imprisonment Tor
not more than one year, or both.
Louisiana prohibits foreign
trusts from doing business in the
State, but this does not keep them
out. The penalties are fines Of
SIoo to $1,000, with from six
months to a years Imprisonment.
Labor unions and farm srs' organ
izations are exempt. Several pros
ecutions are in progress.
Massachusetts, has specific anti
ty,,sk ia,n,s b,,k tLo c,anaxa1 cor1o