Arizona republican., 1900-10-17

our citizens, to stiile competition. linn it production and determine the process of products used and consumed by the people, are jus'5ly provoking public dis cussiOn and should early claim the att tention of the congress. The industrial commission created by the act of con- gress of June IS. 1898. has been engaged in extended hearings upon the disputed questions involved in the subject of combinations in restraInt of trade and competition. They have not yet com- pleted their investigation of this sub Ject, and the conclusions and recom- mendations at which they may arrive are undetermined. The subject is one giving rise to many divergent views as to the nature and variety or cause and extent of the injuries to the public which may result from large cOmbina
 tions concentrating more or less nu- merouS enterprises and establishments. which previously to the formation of the combination were carried on sepa- rately. It is universally conceded that combinations which engross or control the market of any particular kind of merchandise or commodity necessary to the general community. by suppress ing natural and ordinary competition, whereby prices are unduly enhanced to the general consumer, are obnoxious not only to the common law bl. also to the public welfare. Taere must be a remedy for the evils involved in such organizations. If the present law can be extended more certainly to control or check these mOnOpolieS or trusts. it should be done without delay. What ever power the congress possesses over this most important subject should be promptly ascertained and asserted. President Harrison, in his annual mes sage of December 3. 1889, said:
 Earnest attention should be given by congress to a consideration of the question how far the restraint of those combinations of capital commonly called trusts" is matter of federal jul risiiction. When organized, as they all ways are, to crush out all healthy com petition and to monOpOliZe the prOduc- ton CT sale of an article of commerce and general necessity. they are dan gerous conspiracies against the public good. and should be made the subject of prohibtory and even penal legisla- tion."
 An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and mono- polies was passed by congress on the second of July, 1890. The provisions of this statute are comprehensive and stringent. It declares every con- tract or combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in the restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or HNrith It denominatts as a criminal every person who makes any such contract or engages in any such combination or conspiracy. and provides a punishment by fine or imprisonment. It invests the several circuit courts of the United States with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of the act, and makes it the duty of the several Unit ed States district attorneys. under the direction of the attOrney-general, to institute proceedings in equity to pre- vent and restrain such violations It further cOnfers upon any person who shall be injured in his business or prop erty by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or de- clared to be unlawful by the act the power to sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States without re- spect to the amount in controversy, and to recover threefold the damages by him sustained and the costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney fees. It will be perceived that the act is aimed at every kind of combination in the nature of d trust or monopoly in restraint of interstate or international commerce.
 The prosecution by the United States of OffenseS under the act of 1890 has been frequently resorted to in the fed ral courts, and notable effolss in the restraint of interstate commerce, such as the Trans Missouri Freight associa- ton and the Joint Traffic association. have been successfully opposed and oppressed.
 President Cleveland, in his annual message Cf 1S96-more than six years subsequent to the enactment of this law-after stating the evils of these trust combinations, says:
 Though congress has attempted to deal with this matter by legislation, the laws passed for that purpose thus far have proved ineffective, not because of any lack of disposition or attempt to eHlOICe lHClll, put Slnlply because the laws themselves as Interpreted by the courts do not reach the difficulty. If the insutticiency of existing laws can be remedied by further legislation it should be done. Tire fact must be rec OgniZed, however. that all federal leg islation on this subject may fall short of its purpose because of inherent ob- stacles, and also because of the com pleX character of our governmental system, Which. while making the feder- al authority supreme within its sphere. has carefully limited that sphere by meteS and bounds which cannot be transgresSed. The decision of our high est court on this precise question rem Gers it doubtful whether the evils of trusts and m!OnOpolies can be adequate ly treated through federal action, un- less they seek directly and purposely to include in the ObjeO $ transporta ton or intercourse between states. or between the United States and foreign coun- tries.
 Tt does not follow however, that this IS the limit of the remedy that may be applied. Even though it may be found