The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-06-02

sential.
Mr.. Newlands. OF Nevada. said ne con-
CURED with the minority that the proposed
constitutional amendment was a make
shift, intended TO meet a political emer-
gency and without serious intention OF
finally being Incorporated in the Constitu-
ton. He said he differed with the minor
ity as 10 what should be done. He would
vote for IL because ne believed the federal
government should have enlarged powers
rather than that IL should exercise no
power at ali. He appealed to the Demo-
Gratis to join In passing the resolution and
sending IL to the Republican Senate. Let
the Senate. he urged, take the responsible
ity OF defeating IT.
TRUST DEFINED.
Mr.. Thayer. of Massachusetts,. defined a
trust as "a business bastard which Mr..
Hanna could not palm off as the result OF
thrift. push and fair dealing of the Amer
lean people.
Mr.. Grosvenor. of Ohio, devoted a few
minutes in explaining thai the failure of
the Ohio Republicans TO nominate Attorney
General Monnett in Ohio did not indicate
that they were opposed TO the prosecution
OF trusts. Mr.. Monnett had had two terms.
and IL was the well-estabIished rule that
no man should be a candidate for that Of
fee a third time. Besides. he said, Mr..
Monnett was not a candidate for re-elec-
ton.
Mr.. Lentz. of Ohio. said IL was exceed
lngly pleasant for him TO hear Mr.. Grosve-
nor apologize for the third time for the
treatment of Attorney General Monnett by
the Republican party of Ohio. Mr.. Mon
nett, he said. had prosecuted one trust out
OF Ohio. In spite of the temptation OF a
bribe Of $500. 900 and I'm spite OF the brow
beating OF the Republican press OF the
State. Mr.. Lentz had read an interview
of the date OF May ~. 1900. with Mr.. Mon
nett, In which he predicted that the Repub-
leans of the State would be punished for
their treatment OF the trusts.
Mr.. Molreft does not say he was turned
down." observed Mr.. G~rosvenor.
You know replied Mr.. LentZ, that
Mr.. Monnett was a candidate for Governor
as the champion OF the people against
trusts. yet not a single representative del
egate dared raise his voice in his favor
He got but % votes. You have a reputa-
ton as a mathematician. Here Is a prob
lem for you: II Mr.. Monnett for fighting
votes would he have received If he had
fought all the trusts?' Laughter and ap-
plause.J This constitutional amendment
was a fraud, he continued, and the Demo-
Gratis would prove the hypocrisy of the
Republicans before Saturday night.
have sufficient power, said he. What
we want TO do is to drive out the agents
Of trusts-RepubIican officials. When We
retire them we retire trusts at the same
time The best informed man In Ohio told
you how you could get rid of trusts. and
forthwith you got rid of him. Laughter
Elect William Jennings Bryan democratic
the Department of Justice an attorney
general. not from the trust-ridden State of
New Jersey. who will keep the trusts so
busy they will not have time to pursue
their rapacious vocation" democratic
applause.1
G~ROsvENoR HITS DEMOCRATS.
Mr.. Grosvenor, replying. said that II
the Democrats elected their President. as
Mr.. Lentz predicted. and proceeded to de-
stroy the trusts, that destruction must
take place under Republican law placed on
the statute books against Democratic OPP
position. Later. touching on an incident
In the political history of Ohio. he referred
TO the way the Democrats had driven out
a Republican official as Democrats in an
other State had hurried out a Republican
Governor"
but they did not murder him. cried Mr..
Rhea. of Kentucky.
Neither did they put up $780, 900 TO pun
Ism somebody who was not guilty" re
torted Mr.. Grosvenor.
Mr.. Pearce. of Tennessee. read a signed
Interview with General Grosvenor, printed
some time ago. declaring that a constitu-
tional amendment was unnecessary to deal
with trusts.
Mr.. De Almond. of Missouri. closed the
debate fof his side with a speech an hour
dIU u ndlI III lcnRtn. lie SAID the prODC-
sition before the House might be viewed
from two standpoints-the standpoint Of
the trust question and the standpoint Of
the coming presidential election. In his
opinion the Republicans were thinking, not
of destroying trusts. but OF the coming
election. The people would not be de-
ceived- The trust evil was not to them
a farce-comedy. 1t was a serious. all i'm
portant problem to be solved. and no mere
political trick would be satisfactory to
them. The proposed amendment, he said,
bore on its face irrefutable evidence that
II was not intended to be placed I'm the
Constitution to control trusts, but 10 be
placed in the campaign to delude voters.
Democratic ~applause.l "Can there he
asked. 'be anything in the proposition that
because you label this antitrust. we shall
not look beyond the label? There is not a
package. OF your political nostrums that
will bear inspection. Laughter.1 The
trusts would be less IL this amendment was
In the Constitution than II Is to-day" In
conclusion Mr.. De Almond appealed to his
Democratic colleagues not to vote for the
resolution
MCALL CREATES SURPRISE.
A surprise was in store for the Repub-
licans when a few minutes was yielded to
Mr. Mccall. of Massachusetts,. who said
he would vote for the Littlefield bill. but
would vote against the resolution. 9Th
resolution said he. brings the promise
to the ear but breaks it TO the hope
Democratic %applause.l Proceeding. Mr..
Mccall declared hat the amendment
would strike a deadly blow at individual
liberty and might be used to destroy labor
organizations. No amendment was neces-
sary until every weapon in the ~constitu-
tsonal armory had been exhausted. PRO-
longed Democratic applause.l
Mr.. Littlefield. of Maine, closed the de-
bate for the resolution. Indiscriminate
denunciatfcn of combinations of capital he
declared was unwise. Many commissions
conserved the interests of the public. Great
railroad and other great public conven-
fences and necessities would be impossible
were 1t not for the aggregation of capital.
Mr.. Littlefeld contrasted the records of the
two parties on the trust question TO show