The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-04-18
Measures Against Trusts.

Measures Against Trusts.
The main features OF the provisions
agreed upon by tine house committee
for bill in restraint of trusts are, with
one exception, of doubtful value The
passage of a constitutional amendment
giving congress power to deal directly
with trusts might do something, though
1t is open TO reasonable doubt. The
problem consists far less in lack of
knowledge what kind of action would
be effective. We venture to say that
IL congress had now unlimited power I'M
der the constitution 10 deal with the
trusts it would be at as much loss as
ever to find the vulnerable point. And
the recent decision of the supreme court,
holding the Texas antitrust law to be
constitutional. would seem to indicate
that state legislatures have larger DOW
ers in the premises than the people are
aware of. 1t is questionable whether
congress would or could do better than
:he several states
Aside from this. however. the first
rock OF difficulty in all the suggested
regulations but one is the definition OF
the term, trust" If 1t Is enacted that
goods made by trust must be so
marked or branded before shipment
from one state to another. that injunc-
tons may issue to prevent Interstate
commerce by trusts and that trusts may
be excluded from the use OF the United
States mails. 1t will be necessary to
know to whom these restrictions apply
and to whom they do not. And we
know as yet OF no definition carrying
with 1t legal weight that will describe
called a trust"
The industrial combination is no
longer a trust, but Is simply great
corporation. The scheme of forming a
trust and issuing trust certificates, while
the various concerns united In II re-
tained their separate organizations and
corporate entity. was for the most part
abandoned long ago. The enormous
concerns that play go large a part In
present industrial activity are mostly
corporations The difference is one Of
capital and not of mode Of organization.
Legislation aimed specifically at
trusts" would not hit them at all.
Then the question Tecurs how, In pro-
viding pains and penalties, to dlscrim-
mate between the large CONCERNS and
gregation and miss the little local cor
poration without pretence or power %
monopoly how 10 catch the STANDARD
oil Company and let an association OF
shingie manufacturers OF hop growers
or wheat raisers slip through the
meshes; how TO forbid combinations Of
capital and leave combination open 10
Labor
These are the puzzles that have con-
founded from the very outset the men
who are bent honestly upon the restraint
and control of monopoly They are not
imaginary. bat real They DO not spring
from desire 90 save the trusts, bu,
from realization Of the necessity o,
saving 10 labor. ana TO capital In small
amounts. the right o. free organization
ana harmonious action. The paucity
OF legislation, the caution ~ the courts.
the limited SCOPE Of the work done by
congress are due 10 the inherent difi-
Guilty of the subject We 30 not know,
and thus FAR we do not see how con-
gTess IS to overcome % what legal def
milton it can attach TO the word
trust" when 10 comes 70 srubody rec
lamentations In a bin, that viii hold
last when it meets what the people I'M
ierstand by trust and slip It's anchor
IN all other cases
The exceptional recommendation.
which looks to us not only practicable
but helpful. is that requiring all cor
PoEations with = capital ia sxcsss ss