Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1906-10-12
Rayner the Pioneer.

on monopolies and trusts are set forth In the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Book,
showing, among other things, that Senator
Isidor Rayner, of Maryland, was the pioneer
who, almost twenty years ago, laid the foun.
dation for the Sherman Anti Trust law.
1t shows that Senator Rayner's House bill
of January 80, 1888, for the regulation OF
trusts, which was particularly well framed
and based on the commerce clause, became
the basis of the Anti. Trust actof 1890. The
first Antitrust bill introduced In Congress
was offered in the House on January 80,
1888, by Representative Stone, of Kentucky,
on the same day that Mr.. Rayner offered his
first measure. Although the two bills were
offered simultaneously, the one by the then
Representative from Maryland paved the
way for the legislation of two years later.
Declaring that the Stone and Rayner bills
were the first ever introduced in Congress
to control trusts the campaign book then
states:
"The Stone bill contained a civil and
criminal section. The Rayner bill contained
a criminal section and prohibited all con
tracts, etc., In restraint of interstate COM
merce, and was based on the commerce
clause.
"The Rayner bill blazed the way rightly
to frame such a law, and was similar TO the
bill that became the law July 2, 1890. 1t
was the pioneer bill in Congress based on
the commerce clause. Yet the Republican
minority ridiculed these bills, showing their
love for the trusts and their ignorance of
how to outlaw them, and printed pro-trust
articles as part of the views OF the minor
ity,' while Mr.. Buchanan suggested no bill
and introduced none."
"The principles of the Democratic party
DEFY" says the book, land the Democrat
ic party has always opposed, monopoly,
called trusts. In 1866. about the time of
the birth of the Republican party, that now
stands sponsor for high tariff and trusts, the
Democratic party in Its platform proclaimed
that one OF Its many high purposes was:
"'To sustain and advance among us con-
stitutional liberty by continuing to resist all
monopoles and exclusive legislation for the
benefit of the few at the expense of the
many &#
At the same time that Mr.. Rayner was
urging his original Antitrust bill Repub
lican leaders In Congress were defending
the trusts and declaring that the Govern
ment had nothing to do with their regula-
ton. When the Democratic party pointed
ont first the existence of trusts Mr.. Andrew
Carnegie replied "The public may regard
trusts and corporations with serene conf
dence." Taking sides with Mr.. Carnegie
and issue with the Democratic party in his
memorable candidacy of 1884 for the Presi-
dency, MIR. Jas. G. Blaine declared "Trusts
are private affairs, with which the people
have no concern" In the same year, In his
letter of acceptance, Mr.. Blaine declared
at ia impossible to point to a single mo.
nopoly In the United States that has been
created or fostered by the industrial system
which is upheld by the Republican party"
The proposition to reach by Congressional
action trusts and combinations engaged in
Federal commerce was new and extremely
difficult kind of legislation, as shown by the
debates from which the Antitrust act of
1890 was evolved, with the Rayner bill as
its basis The late Senator Plat, of Con.
necticut, who was one OF the foremost Re-
publican leaders OF the Senate, said: at Is
very difficult to see that anything can be
reached" under the commerce clause ofthe
Constitution. This was on March "a, 1890.
On April following Senator Hoar, of Mas.
sachusetts, declared: "Senators will remem.
Der that this Is entering upon new and un.
trodden field OF legislation. II Is undertake
ing to curb by national authority an evil
which, under the opinions which have pre-.
vailed OF old, under all our legislative pre-
cedents and policies, has been left to be dealt
with either by the ordinary laws of trade or
by the State"
Concerning the new Rate Law, the cam.
paign book says, In part:
"The present Congress enacted a railroad
law, amending the Act of 1887 II would
have been law had the Republicans so dis
posed. years ago. So controlled by the rail.
roads were many of the Republican Sena
tors that this bill could not have passed this
(Fifty ninth) Congress without the unani-
nous action Of the Democrats and the Pres
idenps big stick which drove and kept
enough Republican Senators In line to pass
1t. At a very acute stage Of the contest the
President found 1t necessary TO request q
conference with leading Democratic Sem
ators. They gladly conferred with him, and
the press made great note OF this unusual