Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-01-03
Chairman Jenkins on the
Hoar Anti Trust Bill.
BASED ON OLD LINES
ALLEGED INVASION OF CoNSTI-
TUTIoNAL RIGHTS.
Says That the Corporations Have
Nothing to Fear From It and the
People Nothing to Gain.

Representative John J. Jenkins, chairman
of the House committee on the Judiciary,
was seen by a Star reporter today when ne
expressed his opinion Of the bill for the reg
ulation Of trusts framed by Senator Hoar.
Mr. Jenkins said the trusts have nothing
to fear and the people nothing to gain by
the new antitrust measure.
'It is practically on the lines of bills
heretofore introduced" said Representative
Jenkins. Its scope and effect are the
same and the main difference is in phrase
ology. What I say with reference to the
bill has no application to those bills relat-
Ing to foreign commerce, as, In my 1udg-
ment, the power of Congress is much more
limited in interstate than in foreign COM
merce. The trusts have nothing to fear
from it, and the people nothing to hope for,
in case it is written into the statutes Of this
country.
Congress Powerless.
For many years I 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 con-
stitutional amendment giving Congress
control of commerce in the states as
we'll as over commerce between the
states, and placing all of the agencies and
instruments of commerce under federal
control. In radical and apparently VIM
dictive manner we are asked to undo In this
bill what this government was organized
to do, and what our people have been DONG
in lawful manner for over a hundreo
years. If this Is all that can be suggested
after months Of study by such an able ana
distinguished gentleman, am content with
my judgment.
Chief Constitutional Objection.
.The principal constitutional objections
are that it is clear exercise Of the police
power of the government, never conferred
upon Congress, but expressly reserved to
the states In other words, it assumes to
exercise powers enjoyed only by the states
1t operates as a restraint upon commerce.
something beyond the power OF Congress 10
do as Congress has only power to regulate
commerce between the states, ana not re.
strict it; 1t interfereS with the liberty OF
contract guaranteed to the citizen by both
state and federal constitutions; 1t depr1Ves
the citizen of property without any COM
pensation; it is an attempt to leslsiate IN
the interest of one class against another;
II exempts a class of persons and corpora
tions engaged in interstate commerce, Whlch
the Supreme Court of the United states
says Congress has no power TO do-that 49,
to create exemptions.
Two EeaCureS OF LuS DILL.
"There are only two prominent features
In the BILL One is commonly called the
publicity feature and the other seeks TO
prevent discrimination in sales. AS far as
the publicity branch of It is concerned II
is only aimed at those corporations engaged
in business where there Is no double Eapll-
ity of stockholders. This Is question OF
no interest to the people at large, and only
affects creditors of the corporation when
the corporation becomes insolvent. Hence
such publicity will be of no value or serv-
ice to the people demanding remeolal iesis-
lation. If this provision should be held by
the Supreme Court to be constitutional 1t
could be evaded by the states imposing
double liability on all stockholders-and TO
this 1 have no objection-or the corporation
can withdraw itself from interstate COM
merce and compel the purchaser to go
where the manufactured product is and
thus force the purchaser into interstate
commerce which violates no law. or the
corporation, protected by the laws Of the
state, can sell to a local dealer, who will
engage in interstate commerce in place OF
the offending corporation, and who VIII not
come within the condemnation Of this bill.
Understand. there are many things that 1
think the states ought to do, but l am con-
fining my observations to the power OF
Congress, and am not suggesting to the
states their duty.
Power Of Congress.
ssTo a 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 su-
preme control over the manufactured prod
uct, even though expressly manufactured
for the purpose Of interstate commerce. and
under the law the power of Congress can
not be exercised until the subjects or artl-
cles of commerce are started on their jour
ney to another state. and the power OF Con-
gress is then retained until the product
reaches it's destination, and as soon as
placed for business purposes. as other prop
erty in the state is placed the power OF the
state attaches, If the state receives the
property willingly and treats 1t as other
property in the state the power of the fed
eral government ceases as soon as the
property reaches it's destination.
Attorney Generals Authority.
"I am therefore at a loss to know how
Congress can interfere with manufacture
| or sale, and l am also at a loss to know
| how the Attorney General can be author
| ized by Congress to go either to the monop-
| oily of manufacture or the monopoly of sale
| and ascertain what contracts have been en-
tered into for manufacture and sale, both
| elements being In the power or the states
| and absolutely beyond the power of Con-
The Sugar Trust Case.
1.-The Supreme Court of the United States
| has passed most fully on the monopoly of
manufacture in the sugar trust case hold
ing that that great monopoly in manufac-
ture is wholly within the control Of the
state of New Jersey and beyond the reach
| of the powers Of Congress. The same
! principle applies at the end Of transit In
| other words, before and after the transit
| the subjects of interstate commerce are
| beyond the power of Congress. But the linn
| itation on the sale is with reference to the
| fair market value of the product, or at less
| price than II is accustomed to demand, SO
| that II constitutional the seller could take
| his option to sell at fair market value,
| which would be very difficult to prove. or
| sell at the same price that he had been ac-
! customed to demand.
Dangerous Legislation.
I Here is an interference with the liberty
| Of contract. when the Constitution most
| strongly condemns. II man has large
| amount Of property on hand and has many