Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-10-13
Trusts and the Democracy.

railroads, parties to the contract or COM.
btnation, even though the rates and fares
thus established are reasonable.
%. Congress has the power to forbid
n agreement or combination among or
between contracting competing railroad
companies for interstate by
means of which competition Is pre-
vented.
%. The statute. under. review is a
legitimate exercise of the power of con-
gress over interstate commerce., and a
valid regulation thereof.
Another. we'll known case was the Ad-
dystone Pipe 4 Steel Co. ct al. VS.. the
United States, a proceeding brought on
behalf of the United States under the
antitrust act of congress passed July
2, 1890. 1t was charged in the petition
that the defendants, six corporations
who We're engaged In the manufacture,
sale and transportation OF iron pipe. en-
tered INTO a combination, a conspiracy
among themselves. by which they
agreed that there should be no COMPETE.
ton between them in any Of the states
or territories mentioned in the agree-
ment, in regard to the manufacture and
sale of cast iron pipe. The action was
undertaken for the purpose of obtain
ing and injunction, perpetually enjoin-
ing the defendants from further acting
under or carrying on the combination
alleged in the petition to have been en-
tered Into between them. IN the ground
that it was an illegal and unlawful onk
under the act above mentioned. and be-
cause 1t was restraint of ommerce and
trade among the states.
Judge Taft rendered a decision hold
ing the agreement to be illegal and I'M
lawful under the antitrust law. His de-
cision was affirmed by the Supreme
Court, Dec. 4. 1893, thereby affirming the
power of congress to e with illegal
combinations of that nature and prov
ing, beyond question, the great value of
the Sherman antitrust law.
Recent events show even more clear
ly the real attitude Of the parties. PresA.
dent Mckinley, in his message sent to
congress Dec. 4, 1899, called pointed at
t~ention to the Importance Of legislation
upon the subject, saying that com
binations of capital organized into
trusts to control the conditions of trade
among our citizens, to stife competition,
limit production and determine prices of
products used and consumed by the peo-
pie are justly provoking public discus
sion and should early claim the atten-
ton of congress-" He added that Presi-
dent Harrison had also urged legislation
to prevent organizations intended to
o,,,,l o,% ooJL o~p,rnk;t;or ND ,,o
nopolize production or sale of articles
Of general necessity, and that in accord
ance with that recommendation the
Sherman antitrust law had been passed,
but that the efforts to enforce 1t had
been, in, many cases, unsuccessful. He
showed further that President Cleve-
land, in view Of the difficulties of en-
forcing legislation of this character, had
stated in his message Of Dec. Z, 1896, that
"the laws passed for that purpose have
thus far proved ineffective because the
laws themselves as interpreted by the
courts do not reach the difficulty" n
had suggested state legislation, saying
that "even though it may be found that
federal authority is not broad enough to
fully reach the case, there can be no
doubt of the power of the several states
to act effectively in the premises" 1.-THE
state authority to which President
Cleveland looked for relief from the evil
of trusts added President Mckinley,
has failed to accomplish fully that OBJ
ject. This is probably due to a great
extent to the fact that the. different
states take different views as to the
proper way to discriminate between evil
and injurious combinations and those
associations which are beneficial and
necessary to the great business pros
perity Of the country. The great diver
sity of treatment in different states aris-
ing from this cause and the intimate re-
lations of all parts of the country to
each other without regard to state lines
in the conduct Of business has made the
enforcement of state avs difficult"
The real remedy suggested by this
candid statement of facts was apparent
"a constitutional amendment which
would permit the enactment by. congress
of such laws as could be enforced by
federal courts in every part of the coun-
try without interference with the rights
of the states. While attacks upon trusts
AVE been the stock in trade of profess
sional a~gitators, none of them has Of
fered any practical legislation which
could be enforced in the several states
other than that which might be provided
by a constitutional amendment.
Even Mr.. Bryan. who omits no oppor-
tunity to declare his hostility to trusts,
offers no legislative remedy other tina
that which would be supplied by a con-
stitiona1 amendment. In his address be-
fore the trust conference in Chicago,
Sept. is, 1899, he said: st believe we
ought to have remedies in both state and
nation. and that there should be concur.