The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-01-19
REPUBLIC SPECIAL

REPUBLIC SPECIAL
New York. Jan. 1S.-In the forthcoming
issue of Leslie's Weekly will appear an
editorial commenting on the views of for
mer United States Senator George F. Ed
munds Of Vermont in reference to antitrust
legislation. Mr.. Edmunds's opinion is that
the so-called Sherman bill is adequate to
suppress evil or monopolistic trusts.
The first part of the editorial refers to q
published statement Of Senator Vest to the
effect that Senator Sherman had opposed
and refused to vote for the antitrust
measure of which he is popularity supposed
to have been the author.
| When tho bill came up for passage in the
Senate. Mr.. Sherman, according to Senator
Vest. left the chamber rather than vote
for It.
The editor of Leslle's Weekly sent a
clipping containing Mr.. Vests statement
to Mr.. Edmunds and obtained this reply:
aiken. 8. c.. Jan. 2. 190a.-Dear Sir: Yours
OF the 9th ult. has reached me here. The
statement of Senator Vest contained in the
slip you inclose IL correct have not the
Congressional Record or the Senate flies to
refer to. but am sure on looking them I'D
you will find that the bill reported by Mr.
Sherman from the Finance Committee was
not the one passed by Congress. but that
hhC Oiic pdSSSu ny SOuStSsS was EepOTtSu DIV
the Judiciary Committee, to which the Cher
man bill. after it was reported from the
Finance Committee and discussed and prob
ably more or less amended. was referred
for consideration and that the bill reported
by the Judiciary Committee and passed
was. in every essential respect entirely .lif-
ferent from the Sherman bill and was pure-
ly substitute for it.
THE judiciary Committee was I think,
unanimously of the opinion that the bill
1t reported was, in respect of Its general
scope. an exercise of the whole constitution
al power or Congress. which could only
legislate for the freedom and regulation Of
the several States, and am Of the same
opinion still.
WORST OF ADMINISTRATION
''The only difficulty with the bill we re-
ported and which became law was the want
Of o. - madministration: that that IL s to o say; that the
an end to such so.called trusts and such
combinations as interfere with or restrain
commerce among the states, sad. and SO forth forth:
charge OF the enforcement of law under
stand their duty and are willing to do 1t
peing. OF course, suppnea with sumcient
If the famous knight case had been in
stituted and carried forward with suitable
a,esasions @ Of the precise sir ha,"e ana add mis- MS
supported, as 1t could have Deen, by ade-
quate proof Of the facts It set forth. be:
lieve the Supreme Court Of the United
States would net have had dr,in tho least am.
ting an end to it. as ii can sun do With
similar ones: The bill Of complaint in that
case unhappily was not not s.t1on arawn I'm h sTch
now so much demands some public con-
cerh. 80
what Ii needed Is not 20 much more leg
is,stion =. coSTrstent and earnest admtnio-
tration Of the laws thastexist l have NO
doubt that the present. At AttorTsy r5 a General
means, il supplied with the necessary
funds. to arrest the progrsa and undo the
mischievous work Of sucn sreat and ~.