The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-04-27

n at the tablet before you buy
| and beware of frauds, imita'
| tons and substitutes.
and not through the control Of commerce
which bears no direct relation to com
merce between the states; and that trade
or commerce may thereby be effected is
not enough.
3. That 1.-The relief of the citizens OF
each state from the burden of monopoly
and the evils resulting from the restraint
of trade among such citizens was left to
the states to deal with. and this court
has recognized their possession of that
power even to the extent when it
| becomes a practical monopoly : by
which tribute can be exacted of the COM
munty."
In a word congress did not nor could
not deal with monopoly as such. but
| that this was left by the constitution
with the states. 1T was in the light of
well settled principles" continues Mr..
Chief Justice Fuller. that the act of
1880 was framed. Congress did not at
tempt thereby to assert the power to
deal with monopoly directly as SUCH
To these views Justice John NJ. Harlan,
Republican, dissented. He would pre-
! serve the just powers of the states and
as well the Just authority of the gen.
eral government, which is essential to the
well-being and safety of the states, and
| concludes:
| I'VE have before US the case
Of combination which abso-
lutely controls, or may at its
| discretion control the price of all the re-
| fined sugar in this country. Suppose an
| other combination, organized for private
gain and to control prices, should obtain
possession of all the large flour mills in
the United States; another of all the
grain elevators; another of all the oil
| territory; another of all the salt produc-
] ing regions; another Of all the cotton
mills, and another of all the great estab-
lishments for slaughtering animals, and
the preparation of meats. What power
is competent to protect the people of the
United States against such dangers ex-
cept a national power-one that is capa-
bic of executing its sovereign authority
| throughout every part Of the territory
and over all the people of the nation?"
This decision was rendered in 1894 while
every branch OF the government was in
the hands Of the Democrats. Mr.. Bryan
was member of congress then He
nor any other Democrat in CONGRESS
criticized the decision of Chief Justice
Fuller that I am aware of. NJ effo:! vas
made to strengthen the law of 1890. No
effort was made by Bryan, though the
monopoly, or trust, evil was very appar-
ent, as indicated by Justice HarIan's dis
sentinS opinion, to suggest any national
remedy to reach this evil. The decision
was accepted by the Democrats as set
Ting the question that congress had no
power to deal with monopoly as such.
but that this was exclusively left to the
states.
Hence the question is no longer a ques-
ton Of our individual notions. but a
practical one Of what can be done. If
trusts could be destroyed by talking. Mr..
Bryan and a few of his voluble support
ers from Kansas could accomplish the
JoD without assistance. But the question
is a practical one which has been dis
cussed for thirty years. The oldest anti
trust law is this year old enough to vote.
Governor John A Martin, in 1889 took
strong ground in his message. and the
legislature that year passed an antitrust
law which remained unchanged until
1887. There are laws and court decisions
against trusts in every state, probably. in
the union. The need is not to manufac-
ture sentiment against the trusts. but to
suggest some reasonable and practicable
remedy TO restrain the trust evil, and not
at the same time produce a collapse in
the nations great industries.
one thing as business man you have
noted-there is a tendency to combina-
ton in all business. not only in this
couAry' but the world over The Cana
dian parliament investigated trusts in
1889 You viii find all sorts of associa-
tons. Of manufacturers, Of wholesale
men. OF retailers. including cattle. sheen
lumber, cotton, fruit and so forth. You
seem TO be a member and a director of
the Retail Implement Dealers assocja-
ton. This being the case. it behooves US
to do that which viii accomplish practi-
cal results in a wise way
Hence the matter narrows Itself down
to what ought to be done, and by law
state and national. what can be done
II the knight or sugar trust is the true
Interpretation OF the constitution and T.
certainly is 50 accepted by the Democrats |
at least, there is little further that can
be done by congress until the constitu- |
ton is amended. giving congress power
to deal with monopoly as such 1 see the |
Republicans have proposed a suitable |
amendment TO the constitution giving
congress complete power 10 deal with !
monopoly. This is in the right line. The |
time has come for action. Democrats |
talked in 1852 before election. but repudi- |
ated 1t afterwards. We must meet the |
question in practical way. by promising /
only what can be fulfilled
am for the farmer, the laboring man.
the small producer, the independent uer-
chant, and against the encroachment ~ |
the trust But unless 7 can offer a -am- |
edy 10 cure the trust evil. or lessen a.. |
unless / can ofer a practical remedy n I
tighten the burden on the men with whom,
1 sympathize. hut voice an impractical
bic sentiment that helps nobody.
In the language OF David Har,rn "r /
think that's all" Very truly.
B. L. KEENAN,.
CAsTo