Washington sentinel., 1900-06-16

TMsNzAC =
York, exposes the insincerity oi
the Republican party in dealing
with this question. We commend
the extract given below to the
careful consideration of all:
Mr.. Speaker; In my judgment the
trust question IS one of the mostImport.
ant issues in American politics The
Democratic parry is right on this ques-
ton and against the trusts and the
Republican party is wrong on the issue
and in favor Of the trusts | believe every
intelligent man and impartial citizen in
this country will concur in this cOnclu
sion.
The Republican party is irslncere in
the position it now assumes Tor party
purposes and political advantage. The
present attitude OF the Republican party
on the trust issue, Ike its past, is too
any one. The Republican party has been
in power tor nearly four years and it has
done nothing again t the trusts. On The
contrary. it has aided them and stood
sponsor for them
The Republican Attorney General,
clothed with amplspowers by your own
admission, has failed and refused to
bring a single suit against the trusts and
monopolies. Why did he not nforce
the law now on the statute books2 You
reply, Why have you waited nearly four
wears to amend it'
The law now on the statute books
against trusts is clear and plain, and the
highest court in the land has passed on
its validity and su tanned the constitu
tionality of ITS provisions The anti
trust act of 1890 declares that every
contract or combination in the nature
OF a trust in restraint Of trade and COM
merce among the several States and
Territories or with foreign Dstions is a
conspiracy, lie gal and void, and punish.
able by fine and Imprisonment.
Under this anti trust act it seems to
me every trust in the United States can
be prosecuted Tor violation Of the law,
the charter annulled, and the men behind
it punished for conspiracy. Everg trust
by its very nature IS in restraint Of trade
and commerce and in violation Ofthis
law.
II you will read the anti trust act OF
1890 and the decisions Of the United
States Supreme Court in the trans
Missouri freight case and the Addyston
Pipe Line case the conclusion will be
irresistible to the logical mind that the
fault is not so much with the law as il is
with the men who are sworn to enforce
the law.
The law, so far as it goes, is all right
the do nothing Attorney General IS all
wrong. The imperative mandate Of
the day IS, Enforce the law and every
trust in the country will dissolve 1"
Whenever the trusts have been brought
before the courts and their true characte r
shown, they have been declared illegal.
Ia my opinion-and / say so advisedy
the Department Of Justice, under the
present la Y, can institute aud success
fully maintain actions against every trust
doing business in the United States.
The law Is clear and plain, aud the facts
are within the knowledge OF all and too
obvious for controversy.
Il L,g Haar g,,I ~. L
persons that there are good trusts and
bad trusts; that we should applaud and
commend the good trusts and denounce
and condemn the bad trusts.
Under the law this specious argument
is untenaole, and the men who make It
are the hired attorneys and the special
pleaders for the trusts, or they are
facetious fellows poking fun at the
victims.
Under the law OF our country trusts
are criminal, and there is no distinction
between a socalled good trust and a
socalled bad trust-between big trust
and little trust. Every trust is con-
trary to both the spirit and the letter OF
the law. To seriously contend other
wise as legal proposition would be
preposterous. II we did so, BY analogy,
we might as consistently assert that
there were good pirates and bad pirates.
If robbery is criminal, 1. is immaterial
so far as the crime is concerned. whether
the robbery is a big one or little one.
The violation Of law is the same.
Under the last Democratic Admins
tration there were a number Of suit.
instituted against trusts by the Demo
cratic Attorney General, and carried tC
a successful determination. Bur under
under your present Republican Attorney
General you have not begun or instituted
a single suit under this antitrust act
Now what is your answer to that2 Tha
It is not e1ective2 II you say the ant
trust act is not effective against trust
and monopolies in restraint OF trad
between the States and Territories,
point to the decisions of the Unite
States Supreme Court in the Addysto
Pipe Line case and the Trans Mi~soui
freight case.
Those two decisions demonstrat
eonclusively that If the Republica
Attorney General had doue his swor