The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1904-03-25
Shaw Speaks.
Continued from First Page.)

odd forth to the people any ray OF
hope except at the hands OF those who
were about to fill their seats.
The Republican Congress was not
troduced in the ena OF the Fifty
first Congress was John Sherman's
antitrust bill. Senate File No. /. It
passed both Houses and received the
signature of Benjamin Harrison.
The passage of this act was followed
by several suits for it's enforcement.
and several decisions by the Supreme
stitutional n applying it to various
conditions. Then, on March 4, 1898,
President Cleveland was again inau-
gurated, and in his inaugural address
he refers to trusts. saying:
These aggregations- and combina
cies against the interests Of the people
and in all their phases they are unnat-
ural and opposed to our American
sense of fairness. To the extent that
they can be reached n restrained by
Federal power, the General Govern
ment should relieve our citizens from
their interference n exactions."
He suggests no modification OF the
Sherman Act, and recommends nothing
in it's place. but in harmony with the
teachings of state sovereignty states
manship, of which he always had been.
| and therefore always will be, a dilligent
student he suggests that 1t is very
doubtful whether the Federal Govern
ment has n jurisdiction in the prem
Uses.
That was his inaugural address. He
| does not again refer to the subject of
| trusts in message or proclamation I'M
til December, 1896 after the election or
! William Mckinley, when he can throw
the responsibility upon another. In
this. his last message, he ~denounces
combinations of every description in
language as Incorporate and infiam-
matory as was ever employed by his
party's more recent candidate for the
Presidency. He says:
Their tendency is to crush out indi-
vidual independence and to hinder n
prevent the free use Of human facul-
ties and the full development of human
character"
He then discouraged federal legis!a-
| ton by saying:
The fact must be recognized, how
ever. that all federal legislation on
| this subject may fall short Of its pur-
| pose because of the complex character
of our governmental system. which,
while making the federal authority SUI
preme in its. sphere. has carefully linn
tied that sphere by meets and bounds
that cannot be transgressed. The decl-
sion of our highest court on this precise
question renders it quite doubtful
whether the evils of trusts and monor-
| olies can be adequately treated through
| federal action unless hey seek, direct
ly and purposely. to include in their OBJ
| iects transportation or intercourse Ge-
tween states or between the United
| States n foreign countries"
This. SO far as the record shows, is
| his last utterance. official or otherwise,
4 on tho subject of trusts l1nfil he eX-
plains, in his recent interview, the rea-
| son why nothing was one during eth
| er of his administrations. While the
| platform on which he was elected the
second time promised much in the way
of antitrust legislation. nothing was
done except to include in the tariff act
of 1894 a provision rendering null and
void any combination. conspiracy,
| trust, agreement or contract between
two or more persons or corporations
engaged in importing articles from any
foreign country into the United States
Intended to operate in restraint Of
trade or to increase the market price
| Of any imported article or any manu-
facture into which imported articles
have entered" Their sole legislation
was against combinations of importers,
with intent to put UP the price of i'm
ported goods. In no way shape, or
form did they seek to prohibit a COM
bination of American manufacturers,
producers, or transportation companies.
1t is needless to say nat no effort has
been or ever will be made to enforce
this act, for it is directed against an
imaginary evil. Importers may repre-
sent foreign trusts, but they do not
! combine in this country to increase the
price of their imported wares. It was
! intended to please the people n L See
| no reason to presume that any existing
or contemplated trust was scared
thereby.
And now 1 want to refer to the ian
| guage of Mr.. Cleveland's explanation
for the sad neglect of his administra-
ton as set forth in his authorized in
| terview. He says:
THE question of the government TAX
ing legal action against the so-caiied
rus was given much consideration
during nv last administration, from
1893 to 1897. 1 recall that 7 examined
closely the law and received reports
from Nj. Olney, who was then attorney
general. 1 was most anxious to have
something one, but we were blocked
by decisions of the supreme court,
which at that time tied our HAMS.
. The decisions of the supreme
court. as pointed out in my message,
restricted our action against trusts un-
transportation. There was a distinct
difference drawn between railroads and
purely producing combinations. 1t
could not be said a the sugar trust.
or the beef trust, or the Standard Oil
Company was directly engaged in in
terstate transportation"
L think Mr. Cleveland has overlooked
the fact that Attorney General Knox
has at this time an injunction in full
force against seven corporations. one
c~opartnership, and twenty-three ind
viduals engaged in the production and
transportation of meats and meat
products, restraining them, as the
opinion shows, from recurring their
purchasing agents to refrain from bid
ding against "a other when making
purchases; from bidding up the price
OF live stock for a few days to induce
large shipments, and then ceasing TO
bid so as to obtain live stock at prices
less tina 1T would bring III the regular