The Winslow mail., 1900-04-05
TO GET AT TRUSTS
MonopOIies Protected from Prosecu-
ton by the President and At
tOrney General.

1t frequently happens that man
who is hunting for something will
overlook the desired article when it is
under his very nose. This is true of
most of the delegates te the anti
trust conference who are looking for
a method of curbing the trusts. Near
ly every delegate has a plan of his
own-more or less complicated and
impracticable-buti it has remained for
Mr., Frank S. Monnett, late attorney
general of Ohio, and Mr.. Williams, of
Massachusetts, to point cut the obvi-
Gus remedy for trust aggression.
Messrs, Mohhett and Williams suggest
no new legislation, no constitutional
amendments, no commissions or other
quasi-eXecutive bodies to deal with
the matter. They point out that the
remedy already exists. The only ne
cessity is to utilize it.
That is to say, Mr.. Monnett declares
that the Sherman law, if enforced, will
reach the trusts. Mr.. Williams adds
the corollary statement that the peo-
pie can have the Sherman law enforced
by electing officers who will enforce it.
Neither statement can successfully be
controverted. The trusts now flourish
unchecked not because there is no law
which Will reach them, but because the
laws already on the statute books are
not enforced by the president of the
United States and his attorney gen
eraL Those officers nullify the Sher-
man law. They would nullify any
similar legislation that might be en-
acted. The fault is not with the law,
but with the officers who refuse to
enforce it-who beg the question by
declaring that it can't be enforced.
The president, through his attorney
general, has paralyZed the energies of
every United States district attorney
in the country. Among those officers
are no doubt many men like Mr.. S. H.
Bethea-active, ambitious and desir-
Gus of enforcing the federal statutes
But no matter how energetic they may
be they dare not attempt to attack the
trusts by means of the Sherman law,
because Mr.. Griggs, usurping the func-
tions of the United States supreme
court, has repeatedly declared that the
Sherman law does not apply to the
trusts and that it is, therefore, use
less to proceed under its provisions.
No district attorney will risk the dis
pleasure of his superior officer by in
stituting Sherman law prosecutions in
the face of such a deliverance. The
trusts are protected from prosecution
by the president and the attorney gen
eral. The obvious remedy is to elect
a president who will enforce the laws
instead of multiplying them.
The administration can make no de-
fense for its attitude. 1t stands be-
tween the trusts and the law. Even
if it be conceded that the Sherman
law might be held invalid by the courts
what excuse can the administration
make for denying those tribunals the
opportunity of passing upon it? The
presidents position is that of a states
attorney who should turn all the mur-
derers out of the county jail and an
swer public protests by the declarat ton
that the statute against murder
couldn't be enforced and that he
wasn't going to try to enforce it. 1t
is a notification of the law of the
land and an invasion of the right of
the judiciary to conStrue the statutes,
Nothing else can be made of it. The
president and his party protect the
trusts. Nay, they punish republican
officers who prosecute the trusts, as
Mr.. Monnett himself can testify, hav-
ing been denied renomin alton by Mr..
Hanna because he dared to institute
and maintain a prosecution against
the Standard Oil combination con-
trary to the wishes and instructions
of the republican boss of Ohio.
If the people of this country wish
to get rid of the trusts they must first
get rid of Hanna, Mckinley and Griggs,
who are owned, body, boots and
breeches, by the trusts. With a presi-
dent in the white house who will en-
force the laws the trust question will
quickly be Chicago Chronicle.