Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-08-29
QUESTION OF TRUSTS
A Bone of Contention Between the
Two Parties.
REPUBLICAN ATTITUDE DEFINED
Discussed at Length in a Cam
paign Document.
SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW
SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW

The question of the trusts will soon be
enc of the bones of contention between
the republican and democratic stump speak
| ers. Democrats are endeavoring to bring
| about a general impression that the repub-
can party has pursued a friendly attitude
toward the trusts. while republicans are
reviewing attempts at legislation in which
| they declare that the democrats have de-
| feated efforts of republicans to secure the
passage Of legislation to further contro.
great industrial concerns. A carefully pre-
pared chapter on this subject appears in
the republican campaign text book, which
has lately been issued.
The Attitude Deemed.
1.-THE attitude of the two great parties on
the trust question Is clearly Defined says
the text book. THAT of the democratic
party looks to constant agitation, with no
restrictive legislation: that of the republic
| can party to such restriction will pre-
vent arbitrary advance in prices, or reduc-
ton in wages through exclusive control.
but not the destruction by legislation or
injury by fictitious agitation Of legitimate
enterprise through great manufacturing
systems by which production is cheapened.
prices of manufactures reduced and per-
manency of employment assured. AS far
back the Fiftieth Congress the demo-
Gratis began their agitation for effect by
the passage of a resolution authorizing the
House committee on manufactures to enter
upon an investigation Of the trusts of the
United States.
Such distinguished democratic leaders
as Representative Wilson of West Fir
ginia, Representative Breckenridge of Ar
kansas, Representative Bynum of Indiana
and Representative Bacon of New York
were members Of the committee, and they
were given power to administer C1thS ex-
anime witnesses. compel the attendance of
persons and the production of papers, and
make their investigation thorough one
More than 100 witnesses. including H. A.
Havemeyer and Claus Spreckels of sugar
fame, Mr.. Rockefeller, MIR. Flagler and
others of the Standard Oh Company, and
representatives of the cotton bagging trust
and whisky trust, were examined A Ihous-
and pages of testimony were taken and the
committee delayed its report until one day
before the expiration of the Congress, when
it presented it's testimony, but made no
recommendation to legislation. owing to
the present difference of opinion between
members of the committee.
I'm the fifty-second Congress the House
judiciary committee made another inveStt-
CATION. and after an examination Of many
Witnesses submitted a report In which 1t
declared that none Of the methods en-
pIoyed by the trust in controlling the pro-
duction or disposition Of their products IRE
in violation of the United States laws. ana
that it Is clearly settled that the produc-
ton or manufacture of that which may De
come a subject OF interstate commerce ana
ultimately pass into protected trade is not
commerce, nor can manufacturers any
sort be instruments of commerce within the
meaning of the Constitution" In 1894 they
again grappled with the trust problem. ad-
ding to the Wilson-Gorman tarin law
series of provisions purporting to authorize
the regulation of trusts. but which neither
the democratic President nor the democrat
ic officials who were in power when the act
came into existence made, so far as Is
known, any attempt to put into operation
The Sherman Antitrust Law.
"The difference between democratic prom
Uses and republican performances Is strik-
ingly illustrated by the enactment OF the
measure known as the Sherman antitrust
law, which was enacted in 1890 by repuo-
lican Congress and signed by a republican
Observation-Disclosures Harrison Although
the democrats sneered at the BILL which
they contended was simply piece OF bum
combe and would be only dead letter. the
recent decisions of the Supreme Court have
shown that 1t is at least the only piece of
legislation ever put upon the statute books
which has the sembance of power to con-
troll and prevent combinations in restraint
of production of commerce.
"ITnder this law the Supreme Court of
the United States, on the oath day of Oc-
tober 1898, held illegal the Joint Traffic
Association, an agreement entered into be-
tween some thirty-one different railroad
companies, and enjoined its further exc
cution.
1.-The court held in this case:
- Congress has the power to prohibit.
as in restraint of interstate commerce,
contract or combination between compel
ing railroad companies to establish and
maintain interstate rates and fares Tor the
transportation of freight and passengers
on any Of the railroads. parties to the con-
tract or combination, even though the rates
and fares thus established are reasonable.
'.3. Congress has the power to forbid
any agreement combination among or
between competing railroad companies for
interstate commerce, by means or which
competition is prevented.
'5. The statute under review is legitt-
mate exercise Of the power of Congress
over interstate commerce, and valid regu-
lation thereof
Another weIl-known case was the Addy-
stone Pipe and Steel Company ct al. VS..
the United States, a proceeding brought on
behalf of the United States under the anti
trust act of Congress passed July 2, 1880.
1t was charged in the petition that the
defendants, six corporations who were en-
gagged in the manufacture, sale and trans
portation of iron pipe. entered into a COM
bina ton a conspiracy, among themselves,
by which they agreed that there should be
no competition between them In any of the
states or territories mentioned in the agree
ment comprising some thirty-six in alb
in regard to the manufacture and sale Of
caSt-iron pipe The action was undertaken
for the purpose of obtaining an injunction
perpetually enjoining the defendants from
further acting under or carrying the
combinatio alleged In the petition to have
been entered into between them, on the
ground that it was an Illegal and unlawful
one under the act above mentioned and
because it was in restraint Of commerce
and trade among the states.
Judge Taft of the United States circuit
court Of appeals, now president of the
Philippine commission, rendered a decision
holding the agreement to be illegal and
unla wful under the antitrust act. His de-
cision was affirmed by the Supreme Court
December 4, 1899, thereby affirming the
power of Congress to deal with Illegal COM
binations Of that nature, and proving be-
yond question the great value Of the Sher-
man antitrust act
President Mckinley on Trusts.
Recent events show even more clearly
the real attitude Of the two parties. Presi-
dent Mckinley in his message sent to Con-
gress on December 4, 1899, called pointed
attention to the importance Of legislation
upon this subject. saying that combinations
of capital organized into trusts to control
the conditions of trade among our citizens,
to stife competition. limit production and
determine prices of products used and con-
sumed by the people are justly provoking
public discussion and should early claim
the attention of Congress- He added that
President Harrison had urged legislation to
prevent organizations intended to crush out
healthy competition and monopolize produc-
Ia of ar pf nv