The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-04-04
GENESIS OF TRUSTS.
Sketch of Their Development in
This Country and of Legislation
Intended to Checkmate Them.

The idea of combinations to oppress
the producer or the consumer has al-
ways been repugnant to the public
conscience. The old common law prin-
ciple of equality for all was inspired by
fear of them, and the American courts
and legislatures from early days have
| been called upon to combat them
The Connecticut constitution frowned
on them away back in 1918, in it's pro-
Visions that mo man or set of men are
entitled to exclusive public emouments
or privileges from the community" and
| in 1924 the monopoly of steamboats, on
the Hudson river, given by the state
of New York to Robert Fulton, to run
, his steamboat engaged the attention
of Chief Justice Marshall and the
United States Supreme court. The
United States bank was stricken down
| as monopoly in money. Railroad con-
! solidation was the next form of the
trust idea, and the early anti-monopo-
| lists put a clause in the Colorado corr
stitutior inveighing against it.
New York caught the first scent Of
the modern form of industrial combin-
| alton, and as early as 1881 made it
| msdemeanor to create a monopoly or
| restrain competition in any commod-
! ity in common use. The principle Of
| this act has since been embodied in the
| legislation of a large number of the
states.
IN VARIOUS STATES.
The Indiana statute Of 1890 inhibl.s
| combinations that prevent dealers from
selling supplies to other dealers, me-
| chanics and artisans The Kansas law
of 1887 forbids confederacies to increase
the fees of attorneys or doctors even
and the act of 1899 goes to the prutcc-
| tion of middlemen, whose ocCuDatlOn
| usually goes when the trust comes en-
J the scene, by forbddng combinations
| to prevent the shipment of grain un-
less controlled by a warehouseman.
In several of the states it IS a vio-
: lation of the law to hold a trrst CertiA-
cate, Some statutes specifically pro-
tect premiums of fire insurance against
increases by federations.
| These laws are not always If eqill
application. That of Illinois, Cor III
stance, makes combinations whose
chief object and effect is to maintain
| or increase wages Lawful: and thcNe
are several other states in which SINH
lar exceptions are made. These n". Of
course. concessions - the voting power
I VI lllt ldDDIlllS tldSSt'S VI SIlllL'u anu
! unorganzed.
| Labor leaders do not hesitate to ad-
NIT that the trades union is itself the
most autocratic of tru$ts, and the
| United States Supreme court has put
it in the category with all the ether
classes Of obnoxious combinations.
FAVORITES IN TRUST LAWS.
Nor is labor the only interest that
the legislatures have tried TO exempt
| Many of the grazing and agricultural
states take live stock and agricultural
products in the hands of raisers or
producers out of the barred classes Of
production. The United States District
court Of Illinois, in the case of the
United Sewer Pipe company VS.. Con-
nell, has just decided that this eXomp-
tion makes the act unconstitutional.
THE statute" the court says, "by
virtue of this clause contains botn
class and special legislation, and is in
contravention of the fourteenth amend
ment of the federal constitution
United States District Judge Swayne
has likewise declared the Texas Anti
Trust law unconstitutional. because IL
eXempts, in the farming element, four
fifths of the people of the state from
it's operation. These decisions would
seem to destroy all the state acts in
which the exemptions ore made.
The state law of North Carolina per-
mits combinations of consumers to
protect themselves against imposition
in the cost of articles for their own
use. In two or three states the sale of
the good will of business cannot be
affected by the trust act; and South
Carolina makes an attempt to keep he.'
whiskey business in countenance by
making the Antitrust law imperative
as to "ofiicers performing official du-
ties under the laws of the state"
SEVERE PENALTIES IN LAWS.
The penalties that are visited upon
offenders are sometimes severe to the
point of harshness. In Illinois, Iowa,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ne
braska, New Mexico Oklahoma and
Tennessee the courts will not ass st
the trusts to collect their debts. in
Illinois grain combination was ex-
empted by the court from accounting
to one of its constituent members in
the use of the common fund.
The Texas and Pacific and the South
ern Pacific Railway companies, COM
peting carriers, pooled the income of
their business between certain points
in Louisiana and agreed to divide pro-
fits The former of the roads even
tually sued the latter for 100000 due
on the understanding, and the court
refused to aid 1t to collect the little
fortune. The Chicago Milk Shippers
association was debarred by an Illinois
. court from collecting from one of its
customers the charge for his milk sup
| plies.
: One trust was permitted to infringe
a patent of the Harrow trust. because
, a combination held it; and a certain
Mr.. Klotz was barred from the Amer
! lean Biscuit trust after he had Joined
/ it, because it could not make a lawful
/ contract with him. Another court
: forced a member Of the Chicago Gas
| trust to stay in ii because he had done
! a wrong act in helping to make the
: trust. These decisions are all based
on the principle that no man shall
profit by his own wrong.
MUST FORFEIT FRANCHISES.
The laws of Iowa, Michigan and
: Utah give a company thirty days tc
withdraw from it's trust or forfeit its
? franchise. Nebraska permits it to dc
| business for a year before losing its
: franchise, But in twenty-five othel
l states partnership in a trust work:
summary forfeiture. Several of th'
4. states visit heavy penalties upon thosr
{ who are associated with them. II
Illinois fine of $4,000 is possible afte
5 the third offense. In Alabama combin
5 ing insurance companies must pay
n~