The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-04-27
NOT A NEW QUESTION
Judge B. L. Keenan, Advises
D. w. Blaine
ON MATTER OF TRUSTS
Blaine's Circular Letters to
State Delegates.
ON MATTER OF TRUSTS

Mr.. d. w. Blaine Of Pratt, is a candi
date before the Republican state conven
ton for congressman-at-laz.ge and ha
sent out a circular letter to the delegate
to Topeka, stating his position on tn
trust question. Judge B. L. Keenan is
delegate to the state convention and re
eeived Mr.. Blaine's circular letter. II
this letter Mr.. Blaine says:
There now exists urgent necessity fol
antitrust legislation to control corporate
greed which has lately assumed suct
menacing attitude toward the general in.
dustries and welfare of the people,
Judge Keenan,, who has made the trust
question somewhat a study, wrote Mr.
Blaine letter in which he says some
practical things worth reading 1t is
well understood by the men who have
given this subject any consideration, that
under the national constitution and the
decisions Of the supreme court, congress
cannot deal with monopoly as monopoly.
In order to do this the constitution must
be amended
1t is this contention, that a constitu-
tional amendment is necessary. which
calls out the letter from Mr.. keenan,. He
contends that the question is not one
wherein there is any necessity to create
sentiment - that already exists-but a
practical question of what ought to be
done and how it may be accomplished.
The letter is as follows:
Wichita, Kan. April &C. 1900.
Mr.. D. W Blaine Pratt, kansas
Dear Sir-I am in receipt Of your cir
cular letter of the 21st ultimo, with en-
closed newspaper clippings and note what
is said therein. I appreciate what you
did in the matter of opening the hemp
ports of Manila, and in the main, COM
mend your position against trusts. But
you are aware the trust question IS not
new one 1t is the old 4'lti-monopoly
question. Law makers and courts have
inveighed against monopolies since the
time of Elizabeth. That combinations in
restraint of trade are unlawful is due
largely to the judicial decision of Sir
Edward Coke made 400 years ago.
MonopoIies in England were the fore
runner Of monopolies of today under the
name Of trusts. While the question is not
q new one in its application to modern
industries. it has new Specification.
The trust, however, is now drifting away
from tile trusteeship. by which number
o. competing concerns have their affairs
adni-istered by a common trustee, into
the corporation, in law a person, making
prominent the question of the power of
the United States to deal directly with a
monopoly as such. Mark the distinction
of dealing with monopoly as a mono
poly, and that of dealing with COM
bination Of Independent concerns, more
properly, a trust, which in effect amounts
to monopoly.
The United States is a dual govern
ment-a government of national and
state jurisdiction. The national govern
ment is the creature OF states. It's powers
are those delegated by the states as ex-
pressed in our constitution. Powers not
delegated by the states are reserved by
the states. The nation is supreme in SO
far as the powers are delegated to it by
the constitution, but may do nothing be
yond the constitution. That Is, its pow
ers are limited by the reasonable mean
ing of the language OF the constitution.
In all else the state is supreme,
and congress may not interfere.
The trainers of the constitution
saw lit TO delegate to congress the power
only Ito regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states;
IN a word the power to regulate inter
national and interstate commerce. Con-
Sress has no further power in relation to
.prr ba
creatures of the several states. and not
- the United States, and congress has
10 power 10 dissolve, control. or regulate
them except wherein that which they do
becomes a matter Of interstate commerce.
d this there gan be raised no question.
To 50 back a little, we find that the
Republican platform of 1855 contains 4
plank condemning the trust The Repub-
hcans were successful that year and fol-
lowed ~ their promise by passing the
antitrust law in July, 1890, which has re-
NAMED unchanged to this day, though
Democrats during a good part Of that
time were in control In 1892 the Demo-
Gratis moved uo 10 the Republican po-
sition Of 1855 and said: we demand the
rigid enforcement of the law made to
ga Gals anu NNlAla u Ailt-u Alu-tSD To-
gether with such further legislation in
restraint Of their abuses as experience
may show TO be necessary" The Demo-
gratis won on this promise to enforce ana
strengthen the antitrust law. But the
attorney general under Mr. Cleveland
(Alr. Olney ridiculed the antitrust law.
saying that all property was in a sense
a monopoly. and that the purpose of the
statute could not be discovered and that
it would serve no good purpose If it
could; and this is the way Democrats
Kept their promise: I'VE demand the
rigid enforcement Of the law 10 prevent
and control them Ctrusts).
Under President Harrison's admins
tration a number Of prosecutions were in
siituted, and among them the so-calel
sugar trust cases. The object was 10
prevent the consolidation of the sugar re-
hneries into 4 trust. In 1874 the Tnitel
States supreme court decided the case of
the United States against L. Z. KNIGHT
* CO. Qs6 L. S. -. the opinion being
written by Chief Justice Fuller. a Demo
crat, in which he held the important doc
trims:
J. That the antitrust law. intended 10
protect trade and commerce from unlaw-
ful retraints and monopolies. was in
tended 70 prevent combinations. contracts
and ooaspiracies to monopolize or re-
strain Interstate or International trade
and commerce only.
: That congress did not attempt by the
ac. % July. 1890. to assert the power TO
deal with monopoly as such, or 70 limit
or restrict the rights of corporations or
citizens in the acquisition, control or dis
position Of property
3 That an article manufactured for ex-
pr d another stats dos No NJ, a.