Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1903-03-06
= - q. q q y q r.
CLARK'S :
A Stalwart Son Of Alabama.
Judge Grosscup's Decision-Not !.
"Sherman" Law 3aG@2 :"
Il q y q q q q Z

anorner feature OF life in that section ana
In the northwestern part Of the state was
the existence of a class of illiterates
whom he called poor whites" These
live In shacks and are an ignorant set.
The speaker thought the inefficiency of
the country school was responsible in
large measure for such conditions, and he
believed also that the church was not
holding its own in these districts.
An Upright Judge.
Judge Grosscup of Chicago is GER
tainly most upright and courageous
official. He not only knows what the
law Is, but he is not afraid to declare
1t. 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 has discovered 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
Au w anu oSSldICo lAut ~ 10 h1plCs 4 NC
trusts will now place their reliance on
the supreme court Of the United States.
and, judging the future by the past, it
will be well 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
%p, of to %%a,s
with intense interest. That court shook
the public confidence in its decision
when 1t declared the income tax uncon-
sttutional. 1t would be extremely I'M
fortunate for 1t 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 be called an
antitrust bill not because he was OPP
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 chance to make speech against
Alger, whom he accused Of buying his
southern delegates away from him at
Chicago in 1883. The bill which Sher-
man wrote was so clunlsily drawn that
any tyro at the law knew it was un-
constitutional; consequently, after
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. e. B. Taylor of Ohio
are claiming for him the paternity OF the
antitrust or 30 called Sherman law OF 1880.
The history of that law can be found in
the Congressional Record and 10 substan-
TALLY as follows:
In 1880 the Hon. John Sherman, then a
member Of the senate. favorably reported
from the finance committee bill intended
to restrain trusts or illegal combinations
tn5uriously affecting trade. The bill was
placed on the calendar and some days
afterward, on motion of Senator Sherman.
was taken up for consideration by the SON.
ate. It caused great opposition from the
lawyers of that body, principally upon
the ground that 1t was not confined In its
operation to interstate commerce or COM
merce with foreign nations, but interfersd
with the constitutional powers OF the
states After some three days debate
and the Offering of an amendment to the
bill by Senator Spooner the bill and the
amendment were referred to the judiciary
committee with instructions to report q
measure to the senate as a substitute.
The judiciary committee at that time was
composed of the following senator's:
George F. Edmunds of Vermont. John J.
ingalls, of Kansas. George F. Hoar Of
William M. Evarts of New York, James
z. Pugh OF Alabama. Richard Coke OF
Texas, George q. Vest of Missouri and
James q. George Of Mississippi.
After considering the bill for some three
weeks or month substitute was re-
ported by Senator Edmunds, chairman of
the judiciary committee. to the senate.
and by 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-
csntly examined the Record, that Senator
Sherman did not vote for the BILL but
md 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
to do with the matter. / never heard the
name Of Mr.. Il. B. Taylor of Ohio men,
toned in connection with the matter. Ev-
cry member of the senate judiciary COM
n1ttee had more or less part in framing
the bill. Senator Hoar was active In the
committee as he always 10 upon impor-
tant legislation, and without doubt con-
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. II Senator Hoar or any other
principal part Of the work, he would. in
courtesy. have been assigned to the duty
OF reporting the bill and managing 1t on
the floor Of the senate. q. G. VEST.
Feb. 20, 1903.
Good Sense.
The following interview contains a
great deal Of good, hard sense:
Alabama Democrats" said Mr.. Albert