The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1904-08-16

the legislative departments of some of
| our State governments. as we'll as Con-
sress In the manner already referred
to. have. BY legislation. encouraged
their propagation.
This statement or plea Of Judge Par
ker amounts to a joinder Of issue Of
beth law and fact between the Repub-
iican and Democratic parties upon one
Of the most important issues involved
in the Presidential contest this year.
The declaration Of the Republican plat
form upon this question Is in part az
follows:
Laws enacted by the Republican
party which the Democratic party fall
ed TO enforce ana which were intended
for the protection of the public against
unjust discrimination orb the illegal
capital have been feariessiy enforced
by Republican President.
Speaking to this question the Presi-
dent said In his acceptance speech:
In dealing with the great organiza-
to explain why the laws were not en-
forced. but to point out that they ac-
tually have been enforced and that
crease the effectiveness of their en-
forcement.
There is no possible excuse for any
member Of the Committee on Platform
Of the Chicago Convention or for the
President to make a misstatement with
respect to the action Of either the Re-
nuhlirau or the nav.neratto no~... x.,.G
| regard to the efforts made for enforce
ment Of the law against trusts. These
are matters of record. The FIRST case
brought under the antitrust act Of
July .. 1880. was begun by Attorney
General Miller during President Harri-
sons administration. That was the
case against the sugar trust" The
government was defeated in both low
er courts, and the case was pending in
| the Supreme Court when Mr.. Cleveland
and Mr.. Olney came into once. The
governments case was In the hands of
Hon. 8. r. Phillips, an able lawyer
who had been Solicitor General under
Presidents Grant. Hayes, Garfield and
Arthur. Mr.. Oiney continued his re-
| tainer. and also Joined In the brief in
the Supreme Court. The oral argu-
ment before the Court was made by
Mr.. Phillips and Mr.. Lawrence Max
well. learned lawyer, then Solicitor
General. The case was decided against
the government. Chief Justice Fuller
delivering the opinion Of the Court,
Justice Harlan alone dissenting. The
question for decision in that case was
thus stated by Chief Justice Fuller:
The fundamental question is, whetfi-
Ell conceding that the existence OF a
ed by the evidence, that monopoly can
be directly suppressed under the act of
Congress In the mode attempted by
this bill.
Examining this question as to the
power Of Congress 1t was observed;
1t cannot be denied that the power
of a State TO protect the lives, health
and property or Its citizens, and to
preserve good order ana the public
things within the limits Of its domin-
ion, Is . power originally and always
belonging g the States not sarren-
ment, nor directly restrained by the
Constitution of the United States, and
essentially exclusive.
After deliberately passing upon the
question OF the power of Congress to
regulate interstate commerce and re-
Affirming the definition OF Chief Justice
Marshall of commerce in the consttu-
tional sense, IL was held that, whilst
the power Of Congress extended to
commerce as thus defined. II did not
embrace the ownership of stock In
State corporations. because the pro-
ducts of such manufacture might sub
sequently become the subjects of inter-
state commerce.
The case against the Trans Missouri
Freight Association was commenced
and brought to fearing during Pres
dent Harrison's administration. The
governments bill was dismissed in the
lower court prior to the Inauguration
of President Cleveland in 1898. An APP
peal was prosecuted by direction of At
torney General olney and resulted in
an afirmance by the Circuit Court Of
Appeals. Mr.. olney directed that an
appeal be taken to the United States
Supreme Court. The case was argued
for the government by Attorney Gen
eral Harmon with great ability against
combination of the best lawyers in
the country. It resulted In a decision
for the United States upon all the
points. the decision having been hand
ed down few days after the inaugu-
ration Of President Mckinley.
Meanwhile a suit had been instituted
against the Joint Transc Association by
direction OF Attorney General Harmon.
This suit was dismissed by the lower