The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-01-04
HoAR'S BILL MEETS
MUCH CRITICISM.
General Comment in Washington
Is That of Good Natured
Ridicule.
OPINION OF REPUBLICANS.
Leaders in the House Do Not Re-
gard the Measure as Afford
ing Remedy-Its Two
-, Prominent Features.
OPINION OF REPUBLICANS.
The Republic Bureau,

Iiln St ana fennsylNanla Ave.
Washington. Jan. 3.-The antitrust bill
drawn by Senator Hoar OF Massachusetts,
chairman Of the Judiciary Committee has
been read with interest by leaders Of the
Senate and House. The general comment
| is that of good-natured ridicule.
MIR. Hoar announced on the opening of
Congress that in due time he would intro
duce this bill Although he did not say so.
his manner of making the announcement
showed very clearly that he attached much
weight to his work as a trust controller.
Those who have read the bill take it very
far from seriously and seem to think it
makes very little difference either to the
trusts or to the people whether it ever is
put upon the statute books.
The eagerness with which several hun
dredS OF Senators and Representatives have
rushed into the antitrust arena since the
last election is ample proof that the regu-
iation OF monopolies which live by extortion
1s now regarded as the great issue in the
cuItv OF their rega1,o vote eI s1t NJ the d,
statute, which was explained SO clearly by
Senator Vest In his recent interview in The
Repuolic. is admitted by all the serious op-
Many of them agree with the Missouri
senator that the most logical. easy and
depriving them OF the tariff protection un-
der which they operate.
The Republican leaders Of the House do
not regard Senator Hoar'e bill as at all
calculated to afrord remedy.
committee expressed the general opinion
The trusts have nothing to fear, and the
people nothing to gain by the new anti
trust measure. -.y
heretofore introduced. Its scope and ef-
ieet are the same, and the main difference
is IN phraseology.
There are only two prominent features
- the bill One is commonly called the
publicity feature and the other seeks to
prevent discrimination in sales. AS far as
hNa e Il
lis only aimed at those corporations en-
gagged in business where there Is no double
liability of stockhoiders This is "a a % 9ues-
W q sas Ds ese as5ss
ton when the, corporation becomes insoI-
vent. Hence such publicity will bs Of no
% ssSs to- the PeoP,s P, SpaRss
should be held by the Supreme Court to
pe CONSTITUTIONAL. 1t could be eyaded by
stockholders-and to this have no obtec-
tion-or the corporation can withdraw it.
self from interstate commerce and compel
tnred product Is. and thus force Inar the par-
chaser into interstate commerce, which vio-
lates no law
or the corporation protected by the laws
OF the State. can sell to a local dealer. who
VIII engage in Interstate commerce in place
OF the offending corporation. and who will
bill. Understand, there are many. things
that think the States ought to do but I
am conflning my observations to the power
States their duty.
II am at loss to know how Congress can
interfere with manufacture or SALE and I
General can be authorized by Congress to
go either to the monopoly OF manufacture
or the monopoly Of sale and ascertain what
facture and sale. both elements being in
the power Of the States and absolutely be-
yond the power Of Congress-