The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-02

INSTRUMENTATION of MonopoIies.
During the discussion of the Army APP
preparation bill in the Senate yesterday a
warm debate on the question of trusts
and monopolies was precipitated- The dis
cussion was brought about by the amend
ment proposed by Senator Berry. provld-
ing that the Quartermaster' S Department
be required TO purchase articles needed
for the use of the Army from dealers not
members of any trust or combination.
After the Alaskan Code bill had been
disposed of Senator Proctor called up the
Army Reorganization bill. After the Sen
ate had agreed to proceed with its con-
sideraton on motion of Mr.. Proctor IL was
laid aside and the Army Appropriation blli
was taken up. As passed by the House the
bill carried SIP. 1856, 4s4. AS reported 10
the Senate il carries S114.951 $50.
Mr. Stewart offered an amendment pro-
yidfng that nothing in what is known as
the Foraker amendment to the Army APP
preparation of 1899 prohibiting the grant
ing of franchises or concessions in Cuba,
shall be construed to apply to the landing
in Cuba Of submarine cables from the
United States or as authorizing the mill
tary authorities to obstruct or prevent the
landing of such cables"
His amendment further provides that the
Secretary of War be directed to grant i
permit to the Commercial Cable Company
of Cuba to lay and operate ub-marine
cable from the coast of the United States
to Cuba, on the terms and conditions usual
in such cases.
In support of his amendment Mr.. Stew
| art said it had never been intended mat
the Foraker amendment should be con-
| na,, a,-ff, oarf nc EIIV-
port CT monopoly. He declared that every
commercial body in the United States had
| asked Congress for permission to land
additional cables in Cuba.
Senator Teller favored the amendment.
Senator Plat of Connecticut made the
| point of order that it was general
| legislation and could hardly be in
serted in an appropriation III. Sena-
| tor Mason said that competition should be
| granted in the telegraph business. He
| claimed that the construction OF the Fora
ker amendment by the military autho:i-
| ties was very remarkable in that they held
| that no other company could compete with
| the Western Union Telegraph Company
This is not new legislation, he said,
\ but a construction of legislation already
! on the books. Today we are bowling to
the one monopoly. while the business men
/ Of the country are paying whatever this
! company demands
Mr.. Platt's point of order was sustained.
| and the Stewart amendment was laid over
| until today.
Mr.. Berry's Amendment.
Senator Berry offered the following
amendment to the section relating to the
| Quartermaster's Department:
! The Quarermaster's Department, in making
contracts and purchases of articles and supplies
for the military service, shall give preference, all
/ other things. including price and quality, being
| equal, to articles OF the growth, production, and
manufacture OF the United States, and as between
| the producers manufacturers, merchants, ana
dealers of the United States preference shall be
given all other things, including price and quail
| ity, being equal, to those producers, mlnufae-
turers, merchants, and dealers who are not mem
bers of or in any way connected with any trust
or combine formed TO produce manufacture or
sell the articles which being contracted for
and purchased by the Quarternaster's Department
for the military service.
Senator Sewell then asked what was
meant by trusts. Mr.. Berry answered that
the interrogater ought to know. Senator
SeweH then began a defence of the com
binations of capital referred to IS trusts, -
stating that the combinations, including
the Standard Oil Company, have been a
blessing to the country, and to curb them
would be to destroy the wealth of the
United States.
Senator Berry denounced the trusts as
greedy corporations which had destroyed
competition and driven thousands of bust
ness men to suicide.
THE trust question is the greatest prob
lem of the day" he said, and we may
yet tight ii out in this chamber The Ohio
Republicans were afraid to dodge the great
question when they constructed their plat
form the other day, and yet there are men
like the Senator from New Jersey who ask
What is meant by trusts"
Senator Hawley stated that those who
headed the trusts were not branded and
were not marked people. He explained that
the Quartermaster General was required by
law to ask for bids and could not refuse
an offer If il was the lowest and the goods
the hest.
Senator Stewart stated that he was very
familiar with the trust question, and saw
only one remedy-that of regulating the
volume of money. Legislation against
trusts seemed useless since the combina-
tions managed to come out on top. but if
the volume OF money were regulated times
would be good and the trusts would grow
shaky and die.
Senator Berry read the Sherman act
against trusts and combinations, and stated
that the Senate should not support crimi-
nal corporations and should pass the
amendment
Senator Pettigrew denied that the rusts
had reduced the price of any article. He
stated that the price of refined sugar had
advanced every year since the organization
OF the Sugar Trust. Senator Stewart ar
gued against the amendment but an
nounced that he would like to choke the
whole greedy octopus family which had
planted itself in the United States. He
made an extended speech against both the
trusts and the amendment. stating that
he could not see remedy in the latter
Senator Pettigrew denounced the Re
publican party for having fostered the
combinations, and classsd Senator Stew
art as a Republican. He related the eff
forts of the Democratic party TO enact
legislation curbing them and told of the
evils of trusts.
II believe that a remedy will be found
for these Illegal corporations" he argued
but it will not be found until the Re
publican party, the nurse and fosterer of
the combinations. is driven from power.
and a party Of for, and by the people is
placed il control"
Senator Stewart answered that his rem
edy was to produce enough legal tender
money 10 cause good times, and thus com
petition would destroy the trusts. He
argued at length on the matter until in
formed by Senator Pettigrew that he re-
minded the latter of a minister who
preached a sermon from the text " Why
stand ye here thus idly?' and then pro-
ceeded to elaborate by saying Why
stand? Why not sit? Why stand We?
Why don't some one else stand? WHY
stand We here? Why not stand some