Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1900-12-20
M'KINLEY ON TRUSTS.
Chief Executive Recognizes Necessity
of Restraining Injurious
Combinations.

1t was doubtless too much to ex-
pect in the presidents message any
definite recommendation concerning
federal control of trusts. Considering
the prominence given to the question
of federal regulation of trusts by Mr..
Bryan in the closing days of the cam
paign the president is perhaps justi-
fled in assuming that the people take
no stock in the proposed schemes for
federal interference in the industrial
consultations that have been formed
and are being formed in the various
states of the union.
The president does not fail, how
ever, to call the attention of congress
to the necessity for applying re-
straints upon such combinations as
are injurious and which are within
the federal jurisdiction. He urges
uniformity of state legislation upon
the subject, and expresses tbs hope
that means may be found for con-
gress to supplement such legislation
for the remedy of evils growing out
of trusts. within the limits of the
constitution"
We commend to the careful consid-
Grafton of state legislatures the very
sound, vigorous and practical sugges-
tions of Gov. Roosevelt upon the trust
question. as embodied in his speeches
and messages, and as recently reiter-
ated and amplified in his published
review of the suit against the New
York ice trust
A careful study of the economic
and legal aspects of the trust ques-
tion will force any fair minded man
who has no prejudice against capital
or corporations, and who understands
''the limitations of the constitution"
to the conclusion that state regula-
tion and publicity as suggested by
Gov Roosevelt represent the largest
possible scope for practicable legisla-
tion upon this question.
1t is very clear from decisions al
ready rendered under the Sherman
law that congress cannot interfere
with the transport of commodities
from one state to another, no matter
whether they are manufactured by
combine or not, unless it can be prov
en- that the combine was formed for
the express purpose of restraining
free exchange of commodities. 1t is
also very clear that neither congress
nor state Legislature can prevent
firms or corporations from forming
consultations in any line of produc-
tion.
The obvious purpose of all proposed
antitrust legislation is the protection
of the public. In the case of the
trusts this protection must be for the
consumer of the commodities pro-
duced by the trust and for the pur-
chaser of trust stocks. 1t is assumed
that the people are entitled to pro-
lection from monopoly and from
"watered" stocks. There are many
economists who controvert this latter
proposition, holding that the state is
under no obligation to protect the
purchaser of stocks, that he should
buy at his own risk. If this conten-
tion were admitted, however. there
would be no field for restrictive leg
islation outside of the restraint or
punishment of monopoly.
Inc plan proposed Dy doV. hoose-
welt for securing both forms of pro-
lection is simple and adequate:
State regulation to restrain monopoly
and to prevent combines which are
formed to raise prices from doing
business in the state and publicity"
of all stock, capitalization, business
and other transactions of trusts for
the protection of purchasers of trust
stocks. Further than this practical
Legislation cannot go without re-
straining trade or confiscating prop
erty.-Chicago Times-Herald.