Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1903-03-05
= q q . q . q . q .
> CHAMP CLARK'S =
4 la ~ StAlwar Of
IN Judge
~ A@A - = A Sherman @@@@@ "


law is, but he is not afraid to declare
it. His recent decision in the meat
cases before him has carried consterna-
ton into every nook and corner Of
trustdom, and unless his decision is
overruled by the supreme court of the
United States he }aE discovered a way
of squelching the trusts. While Mr..
Littlefeld and other puissant and re-
nowned trust busters have been both
ering their august and profound nog-
gins to discover some new law with
which to disrupt the trusts Judge
Grosscup "busts" them with the old
law and declares that it is ample. The
trusts will now place their reliance on
the supreme court of the United States,
and, judging the future by the past, it
will be we'll placed. If Grosscup keeps
on the road he has started, he will be-
come large and commanding figure
in public affairs.
The people generally will watch the
supreme courts conduct of this matter
with intense interest That court shook
the public confidence in its decision
when 1t declared the income tax uncon-
stitutional. 1t would be extremely un-
fortunate for it to render another de-
cision that would bring that high tri
bunal under suspicion.
Historic Truth.
For some time the Republicans have
been falsely claiming that Hon. John
Sherman WAS the author of the SO call.
ed Sherman antitrust law and plumed
themselves nightly on the assumed
fact that Republican was the author
of that law. OF course intelligent Re
publicans knew the claim was not true.
Ignorant Republicans thought he was
the author because his name was fas
tened to it, The truth is that John
Sherman introduced what he called an
antitrust bill not because he was op
posed to trusts, but because he bitterly
hated General Russell A Alger. whose
great match trust had just been sat
upon heavily by the supreme court
Sherman introduced his bill solely to
get a chance to make speech against
Alger, whom he accused of buying his
southern delegates away from him at
Chicago in 1888. The bill which Sher-
man wrote was so elumsily drawn that
any tyro at the law knew it was un-
constitutional; consequently, after a
great deal of debate and reference to
at least two committees of the senate,
all of Sherman's bill except the enact
Ing clause was stricken out. and what
is now known as the Sherman antitrust
bill was put in its place. In the follow
ing letter to the Washington Post Sen
ator George Graham Vest throws much
light on the subject:
Editor Post-I notice in this mornings
issue of your paper statement that the
friends of the Hon. q. B. Taylor of Ohio
are claiming for him the paternity of the
| antitrust or so called Sherman law of 1890.
| The history of that law can be found in
| the Congressional Record and is substan-
| TALLY as follows:
In 1890 the Hon. John Sherman, then
member of the senate. favorably reported
| from the finance committee bill intended
| to restrain trusts or illegal combinations
| injuriously affecting trade The bill was
| placed on the calendar and some days
| afterward. on motion of Senator Sherman,
| was taken up for considera ton by the SEN
| ate. 1t caused great opposition from the
| lawyers of that body, principally upon
| the ground that it was not confined in it's
| operation to interstate commerce or COM
| merce with foreign nations, but interfered
| with the constitutional powers of the
1 states. After some three days debate
| and the offering of amendment to the
| bill by Senator Spooner the bill and the
| amendment were referred to the judiciary
committee with instructions to report
| measure to the senate as substitute.
| The judiciary committee at that time was
80 FNIINr
| George f. Edmunds of Vermont, John j.
| ingalls, of Kansas, George F. Hoar Of
| Massachusetts, James T. Wilson of Iowa,
| William M. Evarts of New York, James
| L. Pugh of Alabama, Richard Coke of
| Texas, George G. Vest of Missouri and
| James T. George of Mississippi.
| After considering the bill for some three
weeks or a month a substitute was re-
| ported by Senator Edmunds chairman of
| the Judiciary committee, to the senate,
| and by a yea and nay vote (Which was
| called for by Senator Edmunds) the bill
was passed with but one dissenting vote,
and that was cast by Senator Blodgett of
| New Jersey.
| / was under the impression, until / re-
| Gently examined the Record, that Senator
| Sherman did not vote for the BILL but I
| find on investigation that he voted in the
| affirmative 1t was very well understood
| in the senate that he felt sore over the
fate of the bill that he had reported from
| the finance committee and stated that he
| did not propose to have anything further
| to do with the matter. l never heard the
| name of Mr. f. b Taylor of Ohio men
| toned in connection with the matter. Ev-
cry member of the senate judiciary COM
mittee had more or less part In framing
| the bill. Senator Hoar was active in the
| committee as he always is upon mpor-
| tant legislation. and without doubt COM
| tributed largely to the result. But 1t is
my recollection as member of the COM
! mittee that the principal work was done
| by Senator Edmunds, who reported the
| bill to the senate and took charge of 1t in
| that body If Senator Hoar or any other
| member of the committee had done the
| principal part of the work, he would in
| courtesy, have been assigned to the duty
| of reporting the bill and managing it on
| the floor of the senate G. G. VEST.
Feb. 20, 1903.
| Good Sense.
The following interview contains a
| great deal of good, hard sense:
| Alabama Democrats" said Mr. Albert
| E. Pace a prominent lawyer of Dothan,
| in that state, at the Riggs House. "have
| come to the conclusion that it is the wis
| est policy to keep sending the same men
| to the senate and house. have no idea
| that either of our senators will have OPP
| position as long as they are physically