The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1900-06-21
THE TWO OLD FRAUDs.

They had a debate in congress the
other day In which the Democrats dis
tinctly proved that the Republicans did
not intend to. disturb the trusts; and
then the Republicans whacked back in
lively fashion, and proved that the
democrats refused to execute the laws
on the statute books against the trusts.
1t Is six Of one and half dozen of the
other. Read this:
Bailey (Texas) replied to Grosvenor.
The gentleman from Ohio, he said asked
the house and the country to indorse this
reIusal to permit amendment. In doing so
SAID Bailey, his partisan zeal must blind his
usually clear intellect. Dealing with a
great and comparatively new issue fair
ness demands that the minority should not
only be allowed, but should be invited. to
oner their plans for the suppression Of the
great evil.
You have no real purpose to dissolve or
destroy trade" said he, addressing the Re-
publican side. ''You have been in session
SIX months, but It Is not until six days be-
fore adjournment that you let this question
come up. No one dare stand up here and de-
clare seriously on his honor that he ex-
poets either the bill or resolution to be act
ed upon by the senate at this session.
This constitutional amendment you know
Will never become part Of the constitution
1t can never be ratified by enough statea
No state that believes in the right Of self
government will place in congress the power
to come into state and control it's domestic
industries. The trusts understand that they
are not In the remotest danger from this
legislation. II you would propose a simple
amendment, giving congress control of all
organizations engaged in interstate and
foreign commerce. it would receive every
vote on this side of the chamber
III you insist on your amendment YOU
know it will never become part Of the con-
stitutton. There are two ways Of encour-
aging crime-one Is to close your eyes to
its existence, and the other to offer an i'm
practicable obstacle. You understand its
purpose I have sometimes doubted your
sincerity. said he, in conclusion. II have
even doubted your political integrity. Some
of you may be hypocrites, some even ras-
calls, but none OF you are FOOLS"
Mr.. Baileys concluding sentence was
greeted with prolonged Democratic ap-
plause. in which some Of the Republicans |
Joined.
Mr.. Dalzell. in closing the debate for the |
majority, said that the Republican party
had placed on the statute books in 1890 the |
Sherman antitrust law. The Democrats
came into power in 1892 on platform con- i
tanning strong plank against trusts. For |
four years their executive did not even take |
steps to enforce the law the Republicans
had put upon the statute books The great !
Populistic- Democratic leader at Chicago |
declared that constitutional amendment
should be passed giving congress the power
to regulate trusts. Yet when we come
here" said he with that very remedy the
leader on the other side appeals to his col
leagues to stand together on it. You charge
rs with bad faith. You say that no consti-
tutional amendment that infringes the
power Of the states should be passed. Your
objection is not to the form. but to the
substance. The remedy proposed by the
gentleman from Texas already exists. The
supreme court has decided that it Is not
sufficient. With that remedy alone congress
s powerless. II the trusts are not to be
frightened at the prospect of this legisla-
ion, It Is because they know that between
hem and it stands the Democratic party in
old phalanx.
"You believe in demagogy upon the
lump; we believe in effective legislation
lpon the statute books" (Republican ap-
lause).
Here we have clear proof that both
he old parties are humbugging the
eople. What honest man, not fool,
an support either of them and hope to
btain reform?
They are looking to the trusts for
funds.
The only hope Of reform is through
be Peoples party. Id.