The Saint Paul globe., 1900-06-30

"
1t is coming gradually to BE- recognized
that we have hardly advanced to the
point of being able to define a trust cor
rectly in the effort which Is assumed to
be in progress toward the control Of
those organizations. Many of the strong
est thinkers on the subject have insisted
from the outset that only such indus
trial combinations as render substantive
competition in the lines of business con-
Quoted by them impossible come properly
under the designation of trusts. On this
theory it becomes, as events have tended
to show, next to impossible to protect the
public against the exactions of the trusts
1t requires broader definition for pur-
poses of public control. AS long as the
burden is laid on the public representa-
tives to establish the proposition that
competition in a given line of industry
is impossible by reason of the existence
Of a given trust, it will remain next to
! impossible to deal effectively with such
organizations For thus far the trusts
have found it quite an easy undertaking
to maintain organizations in the business
in which they are engaged which are ap-
parently doing an independent business,
! but which are, as a matter of fact, own
ed in whole or in part by those with
whom they are ostensiby competing.
| This is a favorite and successful plan
| adopted by the Standard Oil company,
and will be found effective indefinitely
under present conditions to prevent the
possibility of proving the absolute con-
| troll of given industry by given trust.
Indeed. the existence of the Standard Oil
concern freed practically from all In
terference with its operations all over
| the country, is the most effective answer
| that can be given to all claims put for
ward that we are doing anything serious
to interfere with the operations Of the
trusts.
Prof. Cark, of Columbia college, New
York, defines a trust as being "any COM
bination of capital large enough to be
dangerous" This is rather an elastic
definition, but it will prove an effective
one if it is generally accepted and acted
on in the legal definition and prosecu-
ton of the trusts. 1t is clearly against
public policy to allow to be maintained
many of the combinations of capital
which are universally regarded as danger
Gus to the public welfare, but which it
| would be impossible to prove to be in
| the nature of effective monopolies. With
such a definition accepted work against
movement is conducted today it has prov
en- worse than abortive, since it has been
attended by a material increase in the
number and potency of such bodies.
Prof. Clark states in the following par
agraph the most convincing of the rea-
sons why the antitrust movement thus
far has been a gain rather than a hin
drance to the trusts. Nor does he over
state them. He says:
more general than the opinion that the
| trusts ought to be crushed is the convic-
| ton that they will not down. They are
here to stay, and We know it. An eNpla
nation of the light-hearted way in which
we put upon the statute books laws that
aim to crush them is found in the fact
that such laws do their principal work
| before they are enacted, when they are
nothing but planks in political platforms
In the present temper of the public
| mind severe measures are at least good
for the party that promises them; and
if by an experiment or two, it is shown
that they are not workable. there is. the
less danger in continuing to enact them
into laws. In general, political platforms
have Of late required prQhibitive statutes,
with pains and penalties attached to
them; and though such statutes have fire.
quently been enacted, so far as large re-
suits are concerned, that has been the
end Of it,
Having the trusts. and being likely to
have them remain with as. the question
which the public should concern itself
with is, what remedies should be applied?
We have had enough law making. There
has been nothing done uader existing