New-York tribune., 1903-01-03
CRITICISED SEVERELY.
TRUSTS NEED NOT FE4R.
Chairman jenkins Giues HIS Tie5cS
on the Hoar Bill
TBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TR1BUxE.l

washington. Jan. "A nat declaration lndt
the trusts had nothing to fear. and the people
less to gain, from Senator Hoar's new antitrust
measure the frank opinion expressed TO
The Tribune tonight by Representative John
J Jenkins, chairman of the House Committee
judiciary. AS Senator Hoar's bill will re-
quire the approval of majority of Mr. Jenk-
ins committee considerable significance at
taches to his comments Moreover, it is believed
by some TO afford an indication of sentiment in
the House.
There is nothing in the bill he began.
1T is practically on the lines of bills heretofore
introduced Its scope and effect are the same,
and the main difference is in phraseology. What
I say with reference to the bill has no applica-
tion TO those bills relating to foreign commerce,
as. in my judgment. the power of Congress is
much more limited IN interstate than in foreign
commerce. The trusts have nothing to fear from
it, and the people nothing to hope for, in case
il is written into the statutes of this country
For many years l have had decided views on
this question and have been very clear that
Congress could do nothing constitutional which
would be beneficial or practical. We must
have a constitutional amendment giving Con
gress control of commerce in the States we'll
over commerce between the States, and plac-
ing all Of the agencies and Instruments of COM
merce under federal control. In a radical and
apparently vindictive manner asked TO
undo in this bill what this government was or
ganized to do and what people have been
doing in lawful manner for over hundred
years. If this is all that can be suggested after
months of study by such able and dis
tinguished gentleman, I am content with my
Judgment
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS
The principal constitutional objections are
that ii is a clear exercise of the police power
OF the government, never conferred upon Con-
gress but expressly reserved TO the States In
other words il assumes to exercise powers en-
joyed only by the States It operates as a
restraint upon commerce, something beyond the
power of Congress TO do. as Congress has only
power TO regulate commerce between the States,
and not restrict il; il interferes with the liberty
OF contract guaranteed TO the citizen by both
State and federal constitutions: it deprtves the
citizen Of property without any compensation;
It is an attempt to legislate in the interest OF
one class against another: il eXempts a class or
persons and corporations engaged in interstate
commerce which the Supreme Court Of the
United States says Congress has no power 10
do-that is. 10 create exemptions
There are only two prominent features in the
bill. One is commonly called the publicity fea-
ture and the other seeks to prevent discrim-
ination in sales. AS far the publicity branch
OF il is concerned, it is only aimed at those cor
porations engaged in business where there is no
double liability of Stockholders. This is a
question OF 10 interest TO the people at large,
and only affects creditors Of the corporation
when the corporation becomes insolvent Hence
such publicity viii be Of value or service to
a people demanding remedial legislation If
this provision should be held by the Supreme
Court TO be constitutional II could be evaded
by the States imposing double liability on all
stockholders-and to this I have objection
or the corporation can withdraw itself from in
terstate commerce and compel the purchaser
TO go where the manufactured product is and
thus force the purchaser into interstate COM
merce which violates no law Or the corpora
ton protected by the laws Of the State, can
sell to a local dealer, who will engage in inter
state commerce in place of the offending cor
poration and who viii not come within the con-
deranation of this bill. Understand. there are
many things that 1 think the States ought to
do but I am confining my observations to the
power of Congress and am not suggesting TO
the States their duty.
LIMITS ON POWER OF CONGRESS.
To more perfect understanding of the
question. we must keep in mind that the power
Of Congress is limited TO interstate commerce.
That is the States have supreme control over
the manufactured product. even though ex-
pressIy manufactured for the purpose of inter
state commerce. and under the law the power
OF Congress cannot be exercised until the SUD-
iects or articles Of commerce are started on
their Journey to another State, and the power
Of Congress is then retained until the product
reaches its destination and as soon as paced
for business purposes, as other property IN the
sat- is nlaced the power of the State attaches.
II the state receives the property willingly and
+reats il as other property in the State. the
FeI
ae the nroDertv reaches its destination. [ am
therefore at a loss to know how Congress can
interfere with manufacture or sale and am
also at a loss to know how the Attorney Gen
eral can be authorized ny Congress TO go either
10 the monopoly Of manufacture or the monop-
civ of sale and ascertain what contracts have
been entered into for manufacture and sale
r,oth elements being in the power of the states
and absolutely beyond the power Of Congress
The Supreme Court OF the United States has
1as ssed most fully on the monopoly Of nlanufact-
,,re in the Sugar Trust case, holding that that
80. r,ouoroly in manufacture is wholly within
4ba control of the State Of New-Jersey and be-
,-o,,d the reach of the powers Of Congress The
came rrinciple applies at the end OF transit
In other words before and after the transit the
subjects of interstate commerce are beyond the
or-er of Congress But the limitation on the
sale Is with reference to the fair market value
~ the product. or at q less price than II Is ac-
c,,storned to demand, so that if CONSTITUTIONAL
the seller could take his option to sell al a far
,,,arket value which would be very difficult TO
prove or sell at the same price thal he hAI peei
accustomed TO demand.
..tzere a. an Interference with the liberty Of
contract. which the constitution most strongly
condemns II a man has q large amount OF
,,-orAr+v on hand and has many Obligations 10
meet to pay labor and bills. he cannot sell his