Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1900-10-18

ABOUT TRUSTS.
Democrats Defeat Constitutional
Amendment. I4S Republicans for
--I3o Democrats Against.
Down with the trusts, is the dem
ocratic campaign cry these days, but
who can tell what. the democratic
party has ever done to check trusts, /
except to howl against them before
election? All legislation against
trusts ever put on our statute books,
has been placed there by the Repub-
licans. The Sherman anti trust law,
a comprehensive and stringent meas
ure for the protection OF trade and
commerce against unla wful RESTRAINTS
and monopolies, was passed by Con-
gress on July 2, 1890. Many prose-
cutions were brought under this act
in the federal courts, among which
may be mentioned the Trans Mis-
souri, Freight Association and the
Joint Traffic: Association, which were
successfully opposed and oppressed.
When Cleveland became president, he
and his attorney general, Mr.. Olney },
believed that theproper way toreach
trusts was by state legislation and
not by national legislation. In ac-
cordance with this view many states
have since passed stringent antitrust
laws, but the relief from the evils of
trusts that was expected has failed
10 be accomplished. The reason for
this may be the existence OF different
opinions in different states as to
which business com binatiOns are in
Ijurious and which are beneficial.
Some states, notably New Jersey,
welcome the organization OF trusts
within their borders. A very strin-
gent antitrust law was passed by
the last Republican legislature OF
Minnesota, but Gov. Lind has made
no efforts that we know of to enforce
the same. Evidently, the Republic
ans were on the right track when
they recognized that it was necessary
for the general government to deal
with this question. The Sherman
law Is good as far ass.it goes, .it has
compelled the trusts TO change their
form reorganization into syndicates,
but it is not far reaching enough.
The rulings of the supreme court
have shown that, as the constitution
now stands, Congress can only regu-
late trusts engaged in Interstate
commerce. In order togive Congress
more power in the matter, the fol-
lowing amendment to the constitu-
tion was proposed in the last Con
gress and pressed to a vote on June
LIST, 1900:
Section 1. All powers conferred by
this article shall extend to the sever
al states, the territories, the District
OF Columbia, and all territory undpr
the sovereignty and subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.
Section 2. Congress shall have
power to define, regulate, control,
prohibit, OF dissolve trusts, mono
poles or combinations, whether ex-
isting in the form OF combination
or otherwise. The several states
may continue to exercise such power
in any manner not in conflict with |
the laws Of the United States
Section 8. Congress shall have
power to enforce the provisions Of |
this article by appropriate legisla-
tion.
The clause saving all rights of
states was inserted in the hope Of
getting States Rights Democrats to
support the amendment. Neverthe-
less the vote stood 148 Republicans
for and 13O Democrats against, and
the measure failed of the necessary
two-thirds majority.
Now, why did the democrats vote
against this amendment2 Because
they realized, and their Mr. Richard
son SO stated afterwards, that had it
passed it would have take1 the trust
issue out OF this campaign. This
shows how much sinceritythere is in /
the Democratic partv's hostility toI
trusts. When given chaice TO vote
for a Constitutional amend dment that
would have permitted Cpngress to
enact such laws as could be enforced
By the Federal courts in every part
Of the country they vote almost sol I
idly against the measure and defeat
zIf.s##58 In view EOf ffliS &TojrYrd rnf fI,r,