The news & observer., 1901-03-16
ANTI TRUST BILL.

antitrust bill. introduced by Mr.. Robin
SON. which had been referred to special
committee consisting of Judges Connor,
Graham and Allen. The committee re-
ported the bill favorably, with some
amendments.
Mr.. Mason claimed that the Leglsla-
ture was not in a sufficiently temperate
mood to act upon so important mat
ter In fact, he, did not think it was in
a mncd TO act upon anything. He OPP
posed the bill on te ground that it could
not effect the purpose desired, and would
injure home industries.
Mr. Rountree said he did not know what
a trust was. If all large corporations
were trusts, then there were some good
trusts He was well aware that some
large corporations did infinite harm by
putting down prices to destroy smaller
concerns, and then raising the prices.
This he knew to be the case with the
Standard Oil Company. and it was said
to be true of the American Tobacco Com
pany But ne did not consider that this
bill would affect these companies in the
least. He thought it even weaker than the
Ward Bill, passed a few days ago.
Mr.. Robinson said that the very fact
that the Senate bill went through without
was evidence that there was moth
ing in it. The fact that there is so much
opposition to this bill shows that it is
more effective.
Judge Connor explained that the sec
tions l and (which had been stricken out
consisted of a definition OF trusts and
monopolies. This might have worked harm
to some of our home industries. The
portion of the bill reported favorably
fNts
concern, with the purpose of driving out
competition, to sell at less than cost of
manufacture or give away their manu-
factured products, every such offense be-
ing punishable by fine Of $500, each day
to be a separate offense, penalties to be
recovered by person suing for same
Moreover, persons combining to control
trade. or to refuse to buy or sell to an
other because he is not a member of
such combination, shall be deemed guilty
Of conspiracy to defraud.
Such provisions as these, said Judge
Connor, could not be Objectionable.
Mr. Russell said that this bill purportcd
to be copy of the Texas law. Why was
it that no mention was made in the bill
of the Southeastern Tariff Association?
Mr.. Robinson said he was taking them
by degrees.
Mr.. RUSSELL went on to say at some
length that the bill was of no avail to
carry out the desired purpose. 1t was a
humbug. of the largest proportion. He
held the bill up to ridicule, and spoke of
such measures being introduced for po-
litical capital.
Mr.. Wilson said he wanted to reply to
the statement that the gentleman who
I, bo
paign bluff. He certainly did not think
the gentlemen who had pledged them
selves against trusts should laugh and
make fun of a bill simply because it did
not come up to everything that was ex-
pected.
Judge Graham said that, as to the
Southeastern Tariff Association, it was
not the business of the committee to
hunt up all sorts of trusts. "All this at
tempt to whistle such legislation down the
wind won't do for people who have pledg-
ed themselves against corporations that
are trying to throttle all kinds of honest
industry. This bill cannot injure any
one doing a legitimate business"
Mr.. Robinson said that when the gen
tleman from Durham stated that this bill
was introduced for political capital, he
says what is not true. This bill was in
troduced in fulflment of the pledges
made to the people
Mr.. Robinson then called the previous
question.
The bill passed its second reading
Mr.. Rountree objected to third read
ing.
| Mr.. Mclean moved suspension of rules
(, Carried
| Mr.. Winston sent forward an amend
ment repeating all other anti trust laws.
/ This was lost.
The bill then passed its third reading.
CODE COMMISSION.
The bill for revising and digesting the
/ public statutes came back from the SEN
ate with amendments providing that the
three commissioners get $500 apiece in
stead of $4,000.
Judge Allen opposed concurring, be-
cause he feared this appropriation would
lessen the school fund
Until he had some definite information
as to how much was going to be raised by
| the Revenue Bill, he must oppose this
measure.
] Judge Graham spoke along the same
line.
Mr. Craig favored concurrence.
Mr.. Smith said it would be a little pc
culiar, after voting for the bill with a
| large appropriation, to refuse to vote for
it now with a smaller appropriation.
On the question, the motion to concur
passed by vote of 39 to 10. The ques-
tion of no quorum was raised and the
matter will be taken up again this morn
| ing