The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-06-06
MOI IN ISSUE NOW
Democrats Estopped by Their
Own Act, on Trusts.
STATE RIGHTS INTERFERED
Withholding From Congress
ReguIative Rights.
Especial Correspondence Of the Eagle.)

ent that there is no relief at present from
trusts. The solution of the question is
out of national politics. It rests solely
with states, and one state may strike a
blow at trust while its next-door neigh
Dor may foster and protect it
This condition of things was brought
about by the action of the sixty-two
northern democrats-men who favored a
constitutional amendment. giving con-
gress the power it did not posses, to
govern and restrict trusts-yet who went
into democratic caucus and irrevocably
sacrificed themselves and their opinions,
at the behest Of 1O5 southern democrats,
on the altar Of states rights.
The trust question is out Of national
politics Democrats took it out. Repub-
licans tried to keep it in. Republicans
would have given congress the power 1t
sorely needed in this matter, but the
democratic caucus with its stringent res
clution Of opposition to the joint resolu-
ton for a constitutional amendment, kept
the same from receiving the necessary
two-thirds vote. Here was one instance
where democracy's idol and leader-Bryan
was held inferior to the hoary southern
of state rights; for Bryan is
committed to constitutional amendment
on the trust question.
There was a time when congress was
thought to be all-powerful. Indeed, many
intelligent people yet think So But It
is not Congress is bound by constitu-
tional restrictions. Decision after deci-
sion has held that it only has power on
the trust question in matters having to
do with Interstate commerce: that II can
not Interfere with state control of trusts
and combines under present statutes.
Here in Washington. in congress. this
point was conceded alike by republican
and democrat. Yet, vixen the republican
p5rty sought TO give congress that power
which was necessary properly to deal with
this question and afford relief the demo-
cratic party prevented it.
There are SGT members Of the house
To adopt the resolution for constitu-
tonal amendment which would permit
congress TO exercise power in the matter
OF trusts would take 23S votes-tWo-t thirds
When the vote was taken last Friday
evening there 154 votes for and 13 2against
the resolution; So were paired. It neces-
STATED SO democratic votes to give the
required two-thirds. When the vote came
only Eve maintained semblance of con-
sistency and voted affirmatively. These
five were:
S5bley of Pennsylvania, who is practi-
cally a republican now
Newlands OF Nevada, silver republican
Campbell of Montana.
Naphen OF Massachusetts.
scu2der OF New York
only two republicans voted against the
resolution. They were:
Mccall Of Massachusetts.
Loud Of California.
The fact that the forty-fve states of
the union may and do look with varying
degrees of favor upon the trust is well
emphasized by the following. which is ia
ken from the majority report os the
house committee on judiciary on the
Joint resolution to amend the constitu-
ton:
at is seen that twenty-five of the forty
five states have antitrust and anti-corn-
bination laws-Iaws protecting the people
against trusts, combinations and conspira
cies existing in the states. But the people
Of those states cannot protect themselves
against such trusts and monopolies ex-
listing I'm the other twenty states. because
they arc protected by interstate COM
= cree. Hence the necessity for further
l. gislation under the commerce clause
and also the constitutional amendment.
Trusts combinations and conspiracies. in
the form Of corporations and otherwise.
are wholly unrestrained In sixteen states.
ard IL four others except as 10 fnsura nee
in two and livestock in two
The acts in the stotes having laws on
the subject are not uniform or hzrmoni-
GUS bat in many instances conflict with
each other and with the laws Of the
United States"
Congress in 1880 passed what is known
as the sherman antitrust law The most
famous decision. sugar trust decision.
under this law. is known as the Knight
case. Herein it was pointed out that con-
gress was limited in its powers to acts
in connection with the interstate COM
merce- The Sherman law was held to
ne a wen-deined and admirably con-
structed act yet II only applied TO inter
statecommerce.
Justice Harlan, speaking Of the deci-
sion, said: And yet. by the opinion and
Judgment in this case. # I do not nlisap-
7-ehend them. congress IS without power
TO protect the commercial intercourse
that such purchasing necessarily Involves
against the restraints ard burdens arising
from the existence ~ combinations that
meet purchasers from whatever state
they come. -ith thu threa.-for &. + moth
ing more nor less than a trrest-that they
sh7u not purchase what they desire 70
purchase. except a. the prices fxed BY
such ombinatioas a citizen 81 Missouri
has the right 70 70 in person. Or send
orders 10 Pennsylvania ct. New jersey
for the purpose % p1rchs sing refined ST.
gar. But ~ Wat value IS that right {.
30 IS confronted in those states By a vast
which absolutely controls thu
sri1e OF that article. BY reason OF It's
having acquired ell the sugar refreries
n the TnitsI States fl order that they
max 6v pr5ces n their Own Interest *
ciasive'v u nv judgment The CItlze-s
q the several states composing the u1iou
aye entitled. % right, 70 buy goods n
re state where thsy are manufactured.
ar II any other state. without being cor
tro1te5 hv an Illegal combination, whoss
business extends tFr,csao7st he NJ -
country. which sv me law everywhere
Is an cnemy 20 tae rubIJS Interests. ana
which prevents such buying. EXCEPT -
prices arbitrarily axsd nyt T. : insss.
,hst IRE free course q traae among RE