The Saint Paul globe., 1900-06-09
WHERE INsINcERITY LIES.

If Mr.. Halstead would stop to consider
that there is a fundamental difference
between trusts in the United States and
trusts in England he would perceive the
reason why, in the United States, trusts
are menace to the public and are re-
garded by the people as an almost un-
mixed evil, creating monopolies and de-
stroying competition and freedom of
trade and regulating prices at their own
pleasure; while, on the other hand they
equanimity, as holding no menace to busi-
ness, and are merely regarded as lawful
and even beneficial combinations or con-
solidations of capital and industries.
If the trusts in England were pro-
tected from foreign competition by a
high protective tariff so that they could
control and monopolize every line of in
dustry, then the trusts would be re-
tie favor as trusts in the United States
are regarded by the American public.
The fundamental difference between the
English trust and the American trust is
this: That the trust in the United
States is protected by a prohibitive tariff
which excludes foreign competition and
allows it to absolutely control the
market and all lines of manufacture
while the trust in England has no tariff
protection and is compelled to compete
with the manufacturers Of the whole
world. The English trusts cannot mo-
nopolize their own home market or the
market of any British colony or possess
sion, while the American trusts are
given a monopoly of the home market
and the markets of our new possessions
by the Mckinley tariff.
The Mckinley tariff is the mother of
the great trusts and monopolies in the
United States. They have fattened and
continue to do so as long as it exists.
The farcical attempt of the Republican
party in congress to divest itself of the
responsibility for the creation, encour-
agement and maintenance Of the trusts
by proposing an amendment to the con-
stitution of the United States purportfng
to give congress power "to define, regu-
late, control, prohibit or dissolve trusts,
monopolies or combinations, whether ex-
listing in the form of a corporation or
otherwise" can only be regarded as a
clever political trick and an attempt to
place the Democratic party in false
light before the people in the hope of in
fuencing the voters next November. But
the people thoroughly understand the
motives which actuated the Republican
leaders in congress in playing this sharp
game, and it will speedily be made ap-
parent that the dishonest attempt will
react against those who made it.
The Pioneer Press of June 6, with its
usual agile avoidance of the truth, ask
ed why "ary sincere enemy of monopoly
could object to this proposed constitu-
tional amendment. The Pioneer Press
claimed that the wording of the amend
ment is clear and unambiguous and ex-
plicitly reserves the right to the states
to legislate, each for itself, against
trusts.
The text Of the amendment as pub
lished is as follows:
Section l. All powers conferred by this
article shall extend to the several states,
the territories, the District of Columbia
and all territory under the sovereignty
n ha
United States.
Sec 2. Congress shall have power to
define, regulate, control, prohibit or dis
solve trusts, m0nopolieS or combinations,
whether existing N the form of a cor
poration or otherwise. The several states
may continue to exercise such power in
any manner not in conflict with the laws
OF the United states.
Sec. 8. Congress shall have power to
enforce the provisions of this article by
appropriate legislation.
Can any truthful person maintain that
under such an amendment the several
states would retain the powers which
they now possess to -legislate against
trusts? They would be restricted to the
enactment of such legislation as was
not In conflict with an act of congress
which a trust-loving Republican majort-
ty in congress might see fit to enact after
the adoption of such an amendment to
the constitution.
Would it be safe to place in the hands
of a Republican congress, dominated by
Mark Hanna, the power to regulate,
control, prohibit or dissolve combinatio
of labor? 1t could be done under such
constitutional amendment, which pro-
poses to give congress full power to deal
with combinations whether corporate OF
otherwise, and the legislatures of the sew
eral states would be deprived of their
power to intervene in behalf of the work
ingman. Any law the states could adopt
would necessarily have to conform to the
provisions of the congressional enact
ment
''The sincerity of the Republicans CIR
dealing with the question of trusts was
proved by their votes, and the insineer.
ity of the Democrats was proved by
theirs, says the Pioneer Press, in com.
menting on the fact that the Republi
cans in congress voted for this preciou.
cons, ,itutional debauchInent, and the Dem
ocrats voted against it, Asa .peryers,or