The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-11-17

ed fl1nanJ Was tllf' 'St's
antitrust legislation 1t, ten YEARS.
The next important act of this ses.
| sion begun under the patronage OF MI.
lI.ittlefield. of Maine, and was an hb-
| so)ute thorough going and radical meas
4 urc 1t provided that no common carrier
should transport any property produced,
manufactured or sold iii violation of any
of tho antitrust laws, and authorized re-
4 covery OF treble damages by anything
done ia violation of this act The act
was unanimously passed In tho House,
but iii the Senate II met with Strong OPP
position, Senator Nelson, OF Minnesota,
! having introduced an amendment which
was fur more acceptable to the trusts.
! 1T is alleged that the trusts sent tele-
| grams broadcast. Unfortunately urging
the adoption Of 1.ittlefield's bill and by
this means produced the impression that
they feared tho Nelson bill. willie just
the contrary was the case. In any event
the Nelson bill was adopted after con-
ference between the. two houses and te-
came law. This bill was far less eff
ficient than the Littleficld bill, Us II
only provided for the creation OF a bu-
reu,, of corporations In tho Department
OF Commerce. and Labor with the power
and right OF investigating all forms OF
corporate activity, which were apparently
monopoistic or illegal. This was the de-
partment in which Mr.. Cortelyou presided
ana his opportunity for acquiring knowl-
edge of the inner workings OF the trusts
wns tho basis or attack made on him
when he accepted the position Of chair
man of the national Republican party.
This, however, is another issue. TO re-
turn to trust legislation, the most cffcc-
tive act at tho session which passed the
Nelson amendment, was that introduced
the giving OF any rebates to any con-
cern by any railroad shoulu be illegal
and a fine OF not less than $1,000 nor
moro than $4,000 was enacted for each
orfensc This law was based on the theo
ry that special freight rates we're an.
enormous factor in corruption growing
QUIZ. OF competition between favored and
unfavored corporations. Finally the Eff
ty-scvcnth Congress passed n bill that
largely expedited the trial OF trust cases
by authorizing the removal direct from
the Circuit to the Supreme Court OF all
cases brought under these acts.
SO much for legislation. In tho mat;
ter Of legal enforcement OF these laws
the administration has not been alto
gethcr idlo. The first case that came
up was III May, 1903, when the beef trust
was prosecuted in Chicago and Judge
Grosscup issued ali Injunction restrain-
ing this trust from allowing its agents
to refrain from bidding against each 9TH
or or from bidding UP meat temporarily,
to induce great shipments and then re-
fusng to bid when the shipments reacl-
cd the market or from agreeing among
themselves upon prices or from making
agreements with tho railroads for rebates
or liscriminative rates. In addition to-
tho beef trust suits were instituted.
against fourteen railroad corporations
eight of which. are now pending. Tho
object of these suits was TO break up
such illegal combinations between rail-
roads and certain favored shippers, where
by tho latter were granted special re-
bates or concessions Under the Slkins
act treble damage had been awarded
the city of Atlanta by reason OF an ille-i
gal agreement made between the COM
poncnt members of the pipe trust not 10
bid for the piping required by that city.
Tho Anthracite Coal Carrying Railroads
case, which is technically known as the
Interstate Commerce Commission VS..
Baird has also gone to the Supreme
simply whether tho Interstate Commerce
Commission could compel the production
or evidence by the railroads. The Cir
cult Court held they could not and tho
Supreme Court has now held that they
could. This decision won a substantial
victory against the practice OF giving re-
bates. for the coal trusts, as well as all
others, may now be compelled to reveal
whatever information the government de-,
sires as to their operation. The final
case, whose results are too well known
| to need recapitulation. having demon
stratcd the power of the government TO
| prevent consultations or competing rail
roads. After this case was decided, the
!AttorneyGe General said that he did not
| intend to run nmuck. This action was
probably taken in view of the fact that
at least SIS per cent, of the railroads In
America arc being operated i'll defiance
OF the Sherman antitrust law, and as
these railroads wcrc already in operation
when the Sherman law was passed ana
as It made no reference to them specif-
icilly, 1t is argued that they were by i'm
pllcation not meant to be affected by the
terms OF this legislation. The question,
however, is open and will doubtless need
legislative settlement such in brief is
the record. ] includes four acts of Con-