The Topeka state journal., 1900-02-01

their formation might be divided into
about four classes or heads:
"A partnership of corporations in
the form of a joint stock company.
"A corporation that owns the stock
of other corporations.
"a corporation that buys or leases
the property of others in the same line
of business.
pose of regulating and controlling the
private enterprises and business of it's
members.
1T will be observed that it is through
corporate organization that trusts are
usually formed, and can only be form
ed to any great extent and the latest
scheme, thought to be invulnerable by
many, and defended by some gentle
men of high standing, is that of organ
Iz1ng vast corporation, thereby alb
sorbing and obligating all other in
terests or organizations connected
Herewith or forming a part thereof.
Corporations being creatures of the
law may be subjected to many provisions
of law, not applicabIeto natural persons,
under many conditions and circumstan-
ces. The constitutions of many states,
including Kansas, provide that cor
DOrdtiOnS may be organized only under
general laws, and that such laws are
subject to amendment and repeal. Some
states that have not such a constitu-
tional provision have a general statute
of the same import, and in either case,
the corporation organized after the
adoption of such a provision, is abSo-
lutely subject to the sovereign power
of the state, exercised by it's legislative
department.
MANY states have good antitrust
laws now. Congress some years ago
passed an antitrust law, and these laws
need amendment from time to time. just
like all other laws on important ques-
tions. A thing so energetic, backed by
so much wealth, aVariciouS as it always
is, arrogant, and Indifferent to the
rights of the people,-Seeking, not to
save souls, but to make money, is a
thing not easily managed, hard to keep
pace with, and ever ready to break in
when an opportunity offers.
Il believe, however, that the princi
pal thing now necessary to control the
trust is the enforcement of law. 1t
matters not how many laws we have,
but what are enforced. / believe that
the attempted enforcement of law
against trusts has been simply to i
point necessary to get judicial con-
struction, and but very few cases seem
to have had much attention after ju
dicial termination of the validity of the
law. This is too often the case with all
laws of Importance. In the state of
Kansas, the prohibitory law was Wig
orously enforced fer a few years, until
the courts sustained practically all of
it's provisions, and then it is said,
the enforcement thereof has been prac-
tically abandoned in many places. I
think this is very largely the case re-
1ating to the antitrust laws of the sew
eral states and the government. We fire.
quent1y hear of a casein this. that or the
other court, wherein an antitrust law
has been held good, and enforced in
that particular case and thereafter the
trust continues to operate the same as
before without interference.
II think the legislative and judicial
departments of government, generally
speaking have discharged their duties
reasonably well in the several states
and in the federal government and II
the executive department of govern
nnent will enforce the laws rigidly
which we now have, the defects therein
when so found, viii be promptly reme-
died by the other departments"
Col. w. H. Rossington of Topeka fol-
lowed Mr.. Farrelly. Mr.. ROssington
does not believe that the uniformity of
state laws against trusts viii prove
effective. AS to legislation he said:
State laws are inefficient for two rea-
sons:
.'F'irst-To exclude goods manufac-
tured by a trust, if constitutional, would
injure the citizens of the state quite
as much as the trust
tSecond-The trust IS not amenable
to punishment except in the states in
which it is created
TT seems to me very clear that con-
gress may legislate tC control the Gre
alton of monopolieS. 1t does not fol-
low that the rude awakening which
will come to these organizations will
destroy them Ihey can only De de-
stroyed by law.
II do not believe in any limitation
either of the power of the particular
states to create and control in their
own way, nor in an amendment to the
constitution of the United States which
shall confer upon congress the right to
invade the province of the states in
their behalf. I believe that if it is
thought wise and best to destroy these
combina tions if they turn out to be an
evil and not good: if they shall be a
menace to the liberty or the material
welfare of the citizen and a corrupter
of the political morals of the republic,
that they may be effaced and destroyed
by congress within the terms of it's
power to regulate interstate commerce
and by a carefully drawn additional
section in that behalf added to the
Sherman act
certainly am not in the ranks of
that gloomy and pessimistic brood who
believe or affect to believe that if we
do not destroy these trusts they will
destroy u.s.