The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-02-14
SHERMAN LAW ORIGIN.

Ex-senator George f. Edmunds,
whose name is execrated by the Utah
polvcamists because he, through the
| Edmunds law of 1882, disfranchised
them, has written n letter to Charles
P. Rowland of New York, on the origin
of the Sherman antitrust law. Mr..
Rowland has given the letter public
| ity. In this letter, Mr., Edmunds, treat
ing generally upon the possibility of
the several States Of the United States
by coordinate action among themselves
and with the National Government TAX
ing control of corporal evils without
any amendment to the United States
Constitution, takes occasion to explain
tho origin Of the antitrust law which
is called by the name of the late Sen
ator Sherman. Mr., Edmunds explains
that the statute referred to, bearing
date July 9, 1890, was not at all the
same ms the bill on this subject intro
duced by Senator Sherman. Here is
the paragraph from Senator Edmunds S
letter which explains just how the lat"
ter was framed:
The statute of July 2, 1890, except, per
haps, its title was not framed by Mr
Sherman or by any member OF the sen
ate finance committee that reported II
AS reported il was. after some destruc-
tive debate. referred to the committee on
the judiciary. when all after the enact
ing clause was stricken out ana an en-
tirely different series of provisions vas
inserted as result OF most caretnl dlS-
cussion and consideration. These proyi-
sions were put in the very form In which
~, t,,l.
Of the members OF that committee, and
agreed upon unanimously by IT, ana so
reported to the Senate.
The conjecture has been made that
Senator Edmunds was in this, trying
to take credit 20 himself for framing
this statute on the lines that it finally
took. This view is mistake, as is
pointed out by the Springvillc Republi-
can, which says that IT was Senator
George F.. Hoar who framed the law as
it stands, and that Senator Edmunds
would be the last man to make any
claim for himself In view of the facts.
II supports its showing IN this respect
by quoting as follows, from the auto
Biography of Mr. Hoar:
Mf. sherman Dill IOuIll llltlG lawn
with the Senate. II was referred TO the
judiciary committee, Of which was then
member. / drew as an amendment the
present bill, which l presented TO the
committee. There was a good deal OF
opposition to 1t in the committee. Nearly
every member had a plan OF his own.
But at last the committee came TO my
view and reported the law OF lS9O, Ihe
House disagreed to our bill and the mat
ter went TO a conference committee. OF
which Mr.. Edmunds: the chairman OF
the Judiciary committee. and l. as the
member of the committee who was the
author OF the bill, were members. The
House finally came to our view,
That should, and undoubtedly will
settle the question absolutely, Mr.. Ed
munds wrote the letter to Mr.. How
land in response to an article which
Mr. Rowland had printed In the Colum
bia Law Review on the cause of and
remedy for monopoly. Mr.. Edmunds
thinks that the obnoxious trusts and
monopolies have grown up and become
strong because for so many years the
true intent, meaning, purpose and
strength of that so-called Sherman Law
was not understood, and the law itself
was neglected.
It is an interesting bit of history, and
while the autobiography of Mr.. Hoar
makes the matter clear, yet this timely
reminder by Mr., Edmunds awakens un-
usual interest, and will undoubtedly call
attention strongly TO the remedial pro
visions carried in that so-cailed Shcr-
man antitrust law, and head off the
effort that now appears TO be framing
up to urge It's repeal.