The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1900-10-23
TRUST REGULATION.
DEMOCRATIC lNcAPAcITY TO DEAL
WITH THE QUESTION.

Oflicia1 Record of Congregational Ac-
ton by the Republicans and Inac-
ton by the Democrats.
When one considers the record the
Democrats have made in congress In
relation to the trusts, their present ap-
peals to the voters and their promise
to do something further are really RI
diculous. They began on the matter
in 1885, when they had both houses Of
congress and the presidency, and 1t
was possible for them to pass any law
they pleased. There were In that year
16 different bills lor the regulation AMI
control of tie trusts. AS all these bills
were introduced they were referred to
Democratic committees and were never
allowed to see the light thereafter.
The Democratic committee on manu-
features, after being instructed Jan.
25, 1888, to investigate and report rec
concentrations as to trusts, took testi-
mony at cost to the government OF
$11, until Sept 1. 1888, and then
held the question under consideration
until March 2, 1889, six months and a
day, and then acknowleGs ed their in
capacity to deal with the subject by
recommending submitting to the care
full consideration Of subsequent con-
crosses the facts as shown by the tesri-
mony taken by the committee"
The Sherman Law.
The next subsequent congress, under
Republican leadership and against
Democratic opposition, passed the Sher-
man antitrust law. The Republicans
had also given to the country the inter-
state commerce law and all of its
amendments.
Referring to attempted legislation in
the last congress, Mr.. Bryan says:
Just as congress was closing farcical and hypo-
critical attempt made to deceive the public
by the introduction of an antitrust amendment
and an antitrust BILL The amendment was not
necessary and was intended to deprive the states
of the power which they possess rather than TO
confer upon congress new authority.
How can congress deprive the states
of the power they now possess without
assuming any new authority?
Mr.. Bryan says, Without impairing
the present authority of the state con-
gress can provide that corporations or
ganized in any state shall not do bust
ness outside of the state"
His suggestion is entirely unconstitu-
tionaI He says that if elected he will
recommend similar legislation. He
would do nothing of the kind, as he
will never find a Judiciary committee
of competent lawyers who would be
willing to report such bills.
Democrats Prevent Reform.
The proposed constitutional amend
ment was rejected by a solid Demo
cratic vote, all but four of the Demo-
cratic members voting against 1t, and,
although the Republicans voted solidly
for it, it failed for the lack of the nee
essary two-thirds. The minority of the
judiciary committee, composed of Dem
ocrats, presented a report on the sub
ject, in which they confessed their in
capacity. They thought that the only
way to reach the trusts was to repeal
the tariff laws and to amend the patent
laws and thought that even existing
laws were sufficient if they were hon
estly enforced. They claimed that the
proposed amendment to the constitu-
ton interfered with state rights, and
they objected to its reference to our
newly acquired possessions.
Specimens OF Political TutiIity.
Here are some of the i'll advised or
unconstitutional bills that Democrats
introduced at the last session of con-
gress:
Senator Butler had a bill that would
destroy the trusts" by making money,
the national highways, postofices, the
telegraph and the telephone public
functions" He would punish any one
who gave rebates by FORGETTING twice
the amount of the rebate. He would
punish the carriers for trusts and, de-
claring such combinations Illegal,
would give the president power to
suspend the duties on the articles they
control He wanted also to have the
rules that one state made in regard
to trusts apply to trusts incorporated
In other states that entered the state.
He also demanded the registration of
packages shipped by one company to
a point outside the state.
Congressman Ball of Texas introduce
ed a bill to prohibit the shipment Of
articles controlled by trust from one
state to another.
Mr.. McRae of Arkansas put In bill
to define and tax trusts and to author
ize the free importation of articles COW
cred by them.
Mr.. Little of Arkansas introduced
bill to prevent monopoly and trusts
and to secure free competition in trade
among the states and territories.
By Mr.. Henry of Texas-To define
trusts, to provide for penalties and
punishments of corporations, persons
or associations connected with them
and to promote free competition in the
United States.
BY Mr.. Gaines of Tennessee reg
ulate the class of trust matter denied
to the mail.
By Mr.. Daily of New Jersey-For the
protection of the public against the OPP
Grafton of trusts, combinations, asso-
Citations and agreements to unduly en-
nance or diminish the value of the
articles of commerce.
BY Mr.. Lloyd of Missouri-To place
on the free list all manufactured prod
ucts where the articles may be con-
trolled by trusts or combinations Of
capital
BY Mr.. Little of Arkansas-To pre-
vent monopoly and trusts and to Sc
cure free competition among the states.
Ridiculous Democratic Amendments.
When the Republicans were attempt
ing to pass the constitutional amend
ment and were considering amend
ments to the Sherman law, intended
to make 1t more efficient, these were
some of the ridiculous amendments
that Democratic members proposed:
s'That every corporation formed for the purpose
Of controlling or increasing decreasing the cost
to the consumer by preventing competition Is oe-
clared to be monopoly and illegal 1t Is 70 oe
prohibited from shipping goods from one state to
another and for any violation, if convicted It Is
to be punished by a fine OF not less than $500 or
more than $1,000 and by imprisonment OF not less
than 80 days nor more than six months It's arel-
cles of commerce may be seized by the United
States.'
eAll the laws now in force for the fraudulent
use Of the mails shall be applicable to the agents
or promoters of such combinations"
''That every combination tending to restrict
trade OF those engaged In the same line or impede
its manufacture is declared a monopoly, and any
person engaged in it may, on conviction, be pun
shed by fine Of not less than $500 or more than
1000 and by imprisonment for nes less than six
months nor more than year
THAT whenever the president is satisfied that
the price of commodity is raised on account oil
such a monopoly he must suspend the custom du'
ties collected on such articles and continue thS
spenens;on until the price is no longer enhanced.
e-Sf .aA 10 ROC.