The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-03-26
GRIGGs AND THE ANTITRUST LAW.

GRIGGS AND THE ANTITRUST LAW.
The Attorney General Mr. Griggs. has
been nagged so often and so continuously
by some of the yellow journals about his
neglect to enforce the law against trusts
that he has told the public in a letter TO
an inquiring correspondent, the reason for
his tenderness towards trusts of the kind
that people want crushed. The reason is
that there is no law under which he has
authority to proceed against that class of
trusts. Moreover, it is doubtful II Congress
has authority to make a law giving him
authority.
Il is probable that honest papers will,
in future. cease TO annoy the Attor-
ney General about trusts. If he has no
power 10 crush trusts it is useless to both
er him about them. 1t seems that under
the ruling of the Supreme Court the Sher
man law applies only TO interstate or in
ternational trusts. 1t has no application TO
such trusts as the Sugar trust or any
other trust which produces a necessary Of
life. That was settled in 1894 by a de-
cision of the Supreme Court in which the
sugar trust was the defendant. There are
some interstate trusts. They are connected
with Interstate commerce. and against
these the attorney general says he has
waged, and is still waging a fierce war.
They are however, trusts in which the
great mass of the people have no interest
at least no direct interest, and therefore do
not concern themselves much about them.
Most of the trusts-those which the peo-
pie want crushed-are state Institutions,
which they have their homes. The Attorney
General makes that very clear There is
no doubt that he is right. Attorney Gener-
al Monnett of Ohio. who is making a big
reputation fighting the Standard Oil Com
pany in that state, says that the position
taken by the Attorney General is correct
in every particular He did not call on the
general government to make the Standard
Oil Company comply with the laws of
Ohio because he understood very wen that
the Attorney General had no authority to
interfere In the affairs of that state.
MIR. Monnett has a plan for crushing
trusts which he thinks would be success
full If adopted 1t is that the attorney gem
erals of all of the states shall act together
in making war on trusts. The plan ap-
pears to be a good one, but would 1t not
be somewhat difficult to get harmonious
action on the part of the attorney gener-
ais? The probability is that it would be
more difficult to get them to act together
and to agree upon a plan of action than
it would be to crush the trusts if the attor-
ney generals were to join hands.
The trusts are now so numerous and
strong that they do not fear any combina-
ton the law officers OF the states are like
ly to make. In fact, they know that, ex-
cept in isolated cases, the states are not
likely to take any action against them, I'M
less public sentiment becomes more hostile
to them than it is at present. What they
are apprehensive of probably is, that
trusts win be made a leading question in
the national campaign next year, and that
a sentiment will be aroused against them
which will demand their destruction. 1t
is probable, therefore. that trusts win take
an active part In next years elections.
They win have money TO spend and they
win spend 1t. They will probably try to
keep all reference to trusts out of the
party platforms and, failing in that, they
will endeavor to have men elected to Of
flee who will let them alone.
Hostility to trusts would be a popular
issue, because the people believe that they
are being robbed by trusts, but win either
of the great political parties have mon
opoy of that issue? 1t is doubtful The
Republican papers are already saying that
trusts cannot be made a party issue be-
cause no. party will defend them. But
the Republican party can be made largely
responsible for them. because some of the
strongest of the trusts are sustained by
the protective principle of the Republican
tariff. The Democrats can, and probably
will, demand the repeal of the Dingley tar
if on the ground that 1t fosters trusts.
The trust question is assuming greater
proportions almost daily. AS the trusts in
crease in number the hostility to them
grows stronger. Unless all signs fail q
demand for antitrust legislation win be
made in every state at the election next
year.