Smyrna times., 1900-10-17
TRUST REGULATION.
DEMOCRATIC INCAPACITY TO DEAL
WITH THE QUESTION:.

tiOn by the Democrats.
When one considers the record the
Democrats have made in congress in
relation to the trusts, their present ap-
peals to the voters and their promise
to do something further are really ri
diculouS. They began on the matter
in 1888, when they had both houses Of
congress and the presidency, and it
was possible for them to pass any law
they pleased. There were in that year
16 different bills tor the regulation and
control Of the trusts. AS all these bills
were introduced they were referred to
! Democratic committees and were never
allowed to see the light thereafter
| The Democratic committee on manu-
factures, after being instructed Jan
p, 1888, TO investigate and report rec
concentrations as to trusts, took tcsti-
mony at cost to the government Of
! $11,9GS until Sept. l, 1883. and then
held the question under consideration
until March ,, 1889, six months and
day, and then acknowledged their in
capacity TO deal with the subject by
recommending submitting to the care
full consideration Of subsequent CON
crosses the facts as shown by the testi-
mony taken by the committee"
The sherman Law.
The next subsequent congress, under
Republican leadership and against
Democratic opposition, passed the Sher-
man antitrust law. The Republicans
had also given to the country the inter-
state commerce law and all of its
amendments.
Referring to attempted legislation in
the last congress, Mr.. Bryan says:
Just as congress was closing a farcical and hypo-
critical attempt was made to deceive the public
by the introduction of an antitrust amendment
and an antitrust bill The amendment was not
necessary and was intended to deprive the states
OF the power which they possess rather than TO
confer upon congress new authority.
How can congress deprive the states
of the power they now possess without
assuming any new authority?
Mr.. Bryan says, without impairing
the present authority Of the state con-
gress can provide that corporations or
ganized in any state shall not do busi-
ness outside of the state"
His suggestion Is entirely uncOnstitu-
tiOnal. He says that if elected he will
recommend similar legislation. He
would do nothing Of the kind, as he
will never find judiciary committee
Of competent lawyers who would be
willing to report such bills.
Democrats Prevent Reform.
The proposed constitutional amend
ment was rejected by a solid Demo-
cratic vote, all but four of the Demo-
cratic members voting against it, and.
although the Republicans voted solidly
for it, it failed for the lack of the nee
essary twO-thirds. The minority OF the
Judiciary committee, composed of Dem
ocrats, presented a report on the sub
Ject, in which they confessed their in
capacity. They thought that the only
way to reach the trusts was to repeal
the tariff laws and to amend the patent
laws and thought that even existing
laws were sufficient If they were hon
estly enforced. They claimed that the
proposed amendment to the constitu-
tion interfered with state rights. and
they objected to its reference to our
newly acquired possessions.
Specimens of Political FutiIIty.
Here are some of the i'll advised or
unconstitutional bills that Democrats
introduced at the last session of con-
gress:
Senator Butler had a bill that would
destroy the trusts" by making money,
the national highways, pOstoffices. the
telegraph and the telephone "public
functions" He would punish any one
who gave rebates by forfeiting twice
the amount of the rebate. He would
punish the carriers for trusts and. de-
claring such combinations illegal.
would give the president power to
suspend the duties on the articles they
control He wanted also to have the
rules that one state made in regard
TO trusts apply to trusts Incorporated
in other states that entered the state.
He also demanded the registration of
packages shipped by one company to
point outside the state.
Congressman Ball of Texas introduc-
ed a bill to prohibit the shipment of
articles controlled by a trust from one
state to another.
Mr.. McRae of Arkansas put in a bill
to define and tax trusts and to author
lie the free importation of articles cov-
cred by them.
Mr.. Little of Arkansas introduced a
bill to prevent monopoly and trusts
and to secure free competition in trade
among the states and territories.
By Mr. Henry of Texas-To define
trusts, to provide for penalties and
punishments of corporations, persons
or associations connected with them
and to promote free competition in the
United States.
BY Mr.. Gaines Of Tennessee-To reg
ulate the class of trust matter denied
to the mail.
BY Mr.. Daily of New Jersey-For the
q protection of the public against the op-
Grafton nf