The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-06-02
ANTI TRUST MEASURE IS
DEFEATED IN The HOUSE
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Fails TO Sc
cure Requisite Two Thirds.
Democrats DenOunce Proposition as Scheme to DeIude
the People and Vote Against 1t.

Washington, June 1.-The house of
representatives today, after lively
debate extending over two days, de-
feated the joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment empowering
/ congress to regulate trusts.
II requires a two-thirds vote under
the constitution to adopt an amend
ment TO the constitution. The vote
Stood ayes, 154; nays. 131. The afirma-
tive vote, therefore, was thirty-eight
short of the requisite two-thirds, 1872
| Five Democrats, Messrs. Campbell of
Montana, Naphen of Massachusetts,
/ Scudder Of New York, Sibley of Penn
sylVania and Thayer of Massachusetts,
one silVerite, Mr.. Newlands of NeVa-
da, 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 preceding the vote had
strong political flavor throughout, and
was at times very personal. The feat
ures were the closing speeches of Mr..
DeArmond of Missouri and Mr.. Little
field of Maine for the respective sides,
and the short speech of Mr.. Mccall of
Massachusetts against the resolution.
Mr.. Mccall has distinguished himself
before during this session in opposing
the action OF his colleagues on the POr-
to Rican bill. His action today was IN
heralded and therefore attracted the
more attention.
Newlands Calls II a Makeshift.
Without preliminary business, at II
o'clock today the house resumed the
debate on the resolution proposing an
antitrust amendment to the constitu-
ton.
Mr.. Newlands (Nev) said he agreed
with the minority that the proposed
constitutional amendment was a make
shift, intended to meet a political emer-
geney and without serious intention of
finally being incorporated in the cOnSti-
tuition. But he said he differed with
the minority as to what should be done.
He would vote for it because he be-
lieved that the federal government
should have enlarged powers rather
than that il should not exercise anv
power at all. He appealed 10 the Dem
ocrats to join in passing the resolution
and sending it to the Republican SEN
ate. Let the senate, he urged, take the
responsibility of defeating it.
Mr. Thayer (Mass.) defined a trust as
a business bastard" which Mr.. Hanna
could not palm off as the result of
thrift, push and fair dealing of the
American people.
Grosvenor Is Apologist.
Mr.. Grosvenor (O.) devoted a few
minutes to explaining that the failure
of the Ohio Republicans to nominate
Attorney General Monnett in Ohio did
not indicate that they were opposed to
the prosecution Of trusts. Mr.. Mon
nett had had two terms and it was
the well established rule that no man
should be a candidate for that Office a
third time. Besides, he said, Mr.. Mon
nett was not a candidate for re-e!ec-
ton.
Mr. Lentz (O) said it was exceeding
ly pleasant for him to hear Mr.. Gros-
venor apologize for the third time for
the treatment of Attorney General
MOnnett by the Republican party of
Ohio Mr.. Monnett, he said, had pros
ecuted one trust in Ohio in spite of
the temptation of a bride Of $500 900.
and in spite of the browbeating of the
Republican press of that state. Mr..
Lentz had read an interview of the
date of May 10, 1900 with Mr.. Mon
nett, in which he predicted that the
Republicans of the state would be pun
ished for their treatment of the trusts.
Mr.. Monnett does not say he was
turned down." observed Mr. GrOsvenor.
You know" replied Mr.. Lentz, that
Mr.. Monet was a candidate for COVER
nor as the champion of the people
against trusts, yet not a single Repub-
lican delegate dared raise his voice in