The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-09-22
BRYAN VS.. HANNA.

In his speech at Leavenworth Mr.. Bryan
attempted to be sarcastic at the expense
of Senator Hanna. He said:
L read in the mornings paper a speech
made by Mr.. Hanna yesterday in which
he said there are no trusts. When / used
to want humorous reading / would go to
those books which contained a collection
or the writings of humorists. But now
when L want humor / read Mr.. Hanna's
serious campaign speeches.
Senator Hanna did say in a speech at
Chicago: 81 believe there is not trust
In the United States" and he was much
nearer right than Mr.. Bryan, who in a
speech at st. Louis few days ago gave a
long list of alleged trusts, some OF which
ceased to exist years ago and others have
reorganized as corporations. According to
the legal definition of trusts there are few.
II any, now existing in the United States.
Nearly all have reorganized as corpora
tons, though probably Mr.. Bryan is not
aware of the fact and could not state the
difference between the two. Henry Clews,
the well-known banker and financial writer,
of New York, recently published book in
which he says:
Trusts as such are virtually things of
/
now are merely battling against the wind
Tor the so-called trusts have nearly all been
reorganized as corporations, and as such
are now presumably perfectly legal.
In recently published work entitled
The Trusts: What Can We Do with
Them?" by Hon. William NJ. Collier. author
of Collier on Bankruptcy" and state civil
service commissioner of New York, the
author, after describing the original or
ganization of the Standard Oil trust, the
sugar trust and others, says:
These arrangements have passed away
To-day there is probably not a
trust of any Importance in existence They
are gone like the buffalo and the Indian
Perhaps they fled from fear, like the
buffalo, but more likely, like the Indian
they gave place to something that was
from the producers standpoint better
few years ago the trust was one
ton, of obtaining for the producer some
or the benefits of combination, of practic-
ing IN not a few cases some OF the extor-
the community. To-day the most common
means employed for this end is a great
corporation. The difference between the
p0ration Is more than difference of name
The one word is not strictly synonym
Tor the other. They are not the same thing
economically and industriallY they may
be to great extent the same Thing: legal
ly they are different. Decisions of the
courts applicable to the one have at the
most only modified application to the
oener. statutes that condemn the one do
not necessarily concern the other
Such quotations might be multiplied from
| recent writer's who understand the subject
with which they are dealing. The point of
interest is that Mr.. Bryan ridicules Senator
Hanna for saying there is hardly a trust
In the country when, as a matter of fact,
the senator IS literally correct That which
we are all calling the trust question is real
ly corporation question. and in its broad
est sense II is question of all kinds of
consultations and combinations of capital.
Whatever they may be called they cannot
be regulated with club. as Mr.. Bryan
proposes to do