Arizona weekly journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1885-1903, 1900-06-13
THE PARTIES AND THE TRUSTS.

Two measures have just been before
which show in clear light
the attitude of the parties on the
question of the trusts. One was the
for constitutional
TO give congress more
power to curb the trusts than it has
now. The other was a bill to
the sherman antitrust law
of 1890. both of which were up in the
house. The proposition for a consti-
tutionaI amendment on the trust ques-
ton was defeated by the votes of
the democrats and pOpulists. 1t re
ceived a majority of the votes, but ii
did not get the twO-thirds which were
necessary 10 send it to the states.
There were 154 votes cast for the pro
pOsition and 49, were against 1t. All
the republicans except twO-Loud, of
California. and Mccall. of Massa-
chusetts-voted for it. and NewlandS,
a silverite from Nevada, also support
ed it. All the democrats in the house,
however. except Thayer. of Massa-
chusetts. Scudder of New York. Ma
phen of Illinois. and Campbell of Mon
tana. and every populist in that cham
Der. went against it. and thus the
measure was defeated.
The democratic members of the
house will have an interesting time il
the coming canvass explaining to theiI
constituents their vote against the
antitrust measure. They will also be
called upon to explain their speeches
against the antitrust bill. which was
voted on in the house a day after the
amendment proposition was defeated
The antitrust bill was passed because
the democrats did not dare to vote
against it. They talked against it. an6
denounced the republicans for pre-
senting it. but they were forced Il
acduiesce in its passage when the tes
came. Every member of the house eX
cept Mann. of Illinois. voted for the
bill. 1t was an exceedingly humiliar
ing position for the democrats. bu
they have been beset by many embar
easements in the past year or two
and this is only one of the Obstruc
tons which will stand in their way il
the canvass. Their course on theS'
two trust measures will put them oil
the defensive on that issue in tn,
whole campaign. 1t shows the shan
of all the democratic pretense of hos
tility to trusts. Nobody doubts tina
if Bryan had been in the house h
would have taken just the same course
as that followed by his supporters
Here, as in the attitude OF the TIVE
parties ever since the issue first cam,
ND in politics. the republicans hav,
shown themselves TO be the enemie
of the trusts and the democrats hav,
shown themselves to be the trusts
friends. Whatever the masses of tn,
democracy may think on the truS
question. their representatives in con
gress have usually taken the side o
the combines. The only law Of an!
consequence ever passed against tn,
trusts was the one which the new
measure is to strengthening Sher
man antitrust law of 1890, which wa
passed by Il republican congress an,
signed by a republican president Tn,
democrats have had OppOrtunitie
since that day to do some legislatin:
against the combines, but failed [,
use them. The same apathy and per
versity would be shown by them i
they We're in power today. Bryan'
prating against the trusts finds an eff
fective commentary in the fight.
which his party in congress is max
ing for them. When the Kansas Cit!
convention frames a declaration
against the trusts the democracy vii
be overwhelmed with ridicule by the
deadly parallel which the American
people will draw between demOcrati,
talk and democratic practice on the
trust issue.-St- Louis Globe-Demo
crat