Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-06-02
IT WAS DEFEATED
ANTITRUST RESOLUTION FAILS
TO PASS THE HOUSE.
PARTY LINES ARE BROKEN.
Five Democrats and One Silvertte Vote
for Resolution and Two Re-
publicans Oppose It.

Washington, June 1.-The house Of
representatives today, after a lively de-
bate extending over two days, defeated
the joint resolution proposing q, constl-
tutional amendment empowering con-
gress to. regulate trusts. 1t requires a
two-thirds vote under the constitution
to adopt an amendment to the cOnstitu-
ton. The vote STOOD: Ayes 1874, nays 131.
The affirmative vote therefore was SO
short of the requisite two-thirds-192.
Five Observation-Disclosures Campbell of
Montana, happen of Massachusetts,
Scudder of New York, Sibley of Penn
sylvania and Thayer of Massachusetts,
and one silverite, Mr.. Newlands of Ne
~vada-voted with the republicans for the
resolution, and two republicans, Mr..
Loud of California and Mr.. Mccall of
Massachusetts, with the democrats.
These were the only breaks from party
lines. The populists voted solidly
against the resolution. The debate pre-
cedng the vote had a strong political
flavor throughout and was at times very
personal. The features We're the closing
speeches of Mr.. DeArmond of Missouri
and Mr.. Littlef1eld of Maine for their re-
spective sides, and the short speech OF
Mr.. Mccall of Massachusetts against the
resolution. Mr.. Mccall has distinguish
ed, himself before this session in oppos-
ing the action of his colleagues on the
Porto Rican bill. His action today was
unheralded and therefore attracted the
more attention.
Without preliminary business. at II
o'clock. yesterday the house resumed the
debate on the resolution proposing an
antitrust amendment to the cOnstitll-
ton. Owing to the early hour of con-
Vening there were few members present
ana the debate opened quietly and with
out incident. Fleming of Georgia reiter-
ated the charge that the republicans had
no Intention of putting through both
houses either the resolution or the Lit
tlefield bill.
Hamilton said if there was to be con-
tfoi or trusts 1t must be exercised by the
federal government, and a constitutional
amendment, such as was proposed in the
penulng resolution, was essential.
Newtands said he agreed with the min
orlty tnat the proposed constitutional
a1nendmen was a makeshift intended
10 meet a political emergency and with
out serious intention of finally being in
corporated in the constitution. R,It ho
would vote for 1t, because he believed
Ihe FEDERAL government should have en-
larged powers rather thar it should not
eAerclse any power at all. He appealed
~ me democrats to join in passing the
resolution and sending 1t to the ren,,hli-
can senate. Let the senate. he Urged
IN me responsibility of Defeating r.
mi. Grosvenor of Ohio devoted . fou,
n.i n y TO explaining that the fai11ra ~ :"
my, C.io. republicans to nominate Attor-
NY Ieneral Monet in Ohio did NOT in
d1caet that they were onrosea ~ - -
prosecution of trusts. Mr.. Monet hna
nad two terms and 1t was the wal1 as'
.aollsned rule that no man should no !,
pnai1ua Tor that office a third time.
BESIDES, he said, Mr.. Monet was not a
candldaet for reelection.
M. Lentz OF Ohio said it was exceed
1ngiy pleasant to hear Mr.. Grosyenor
apoloslze Tor the third time for the treat
anuh, III attorney General Monet by the ,
IepuDLcan party of Ohio. Mr.. Monetr !
ne saaa, mad prosecuted one trust in Ohio
IA SPITE OF the temptation of a brihe of
$4oo.OOO and in spite of the browbeatinp
OF the republican press of the state. MIR
OF May IL, 1900. with Mr.. Monet. in
when he predicted that the republicans
or the state would be punished for their
treatment of the trusts.
MT. Monett does not say he was turn !
ed down. observed Mr.. Grosyenor.
You know replied MI. Lentz .tb,t
Monett was a candidate for governor asi
the champion Of the principle againsft
trusts, yet not a single republican dele
gate cared raise his voice in his fayor,i
ton as a mathematician. Here is a prob !
lem for you: If Monet, for fighting one !
trust, got only 70 votes, how many votes |
would ne have received if he had fought
Ill lie lIuSlS = lADDIH1SR nd 10 n orh-I
teri
Mr.. Pearce of Tennessee read a signed |
interview with General Grosyenor. print
ed some tim ago, declaring that a conf
stitutional amendment was unnecessary
to deal with trusts. After further rel
marks by Nh. Reeves of Illinois and Mr..
of New York, Mr.. De Almond of
Missouri closed the debate for his side |
with a speech an hour and a half fnI
~ The proposed amendment, he'll
sald, pore upon It's face irrefutable evil
dence that it was intended to be placed
In the campaign to delude voters. |
Il am willing to amend the constitu. !
tion," said Mr.. De Almond, "bu I ami
not willing to amend it so as to take
from our states the power they now pos
sess to create and control corporations
In conclusion Mr.. De Almond appealed
to his democratic colleagues not to vote
for the resolution.
A surprise was in store for the repub-
licans when a few minutes We're yielded
to Mr.. Mccall of Massachusetts. who
said he would vote for the Littlefield
bill. but would vote against the resolu-
ton.
1.-THE resolution" HI said. "brings the
promise to the ear, but breaks it to the
hope" Democratic applause.)
Proceeding, Mr.. Mccall declared that
the amendment was more f~ar-reaching
thar might be supposed at first blush
1t might be used to place all individual
combinations under the ban. 1t would
strike a deadly blow at individual lib.
erty and might be used to destroy labor
organizations. No amendment was nee
essary until every weapon in the consti-
%tutional armory had been exhausted.
prolonged democratic %applause.)
Mr.. Cummings Of New York aid
Under the guise of an effort to destroy
trusts, It is really a measure drawn in
their interests. 1t Is being used to tide
over a presidential election. It now is
alleged that William j. Bryan advocates
a constitutional amendnaant 70 49,.