Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1910-11-04
Kull's Antitrust Bill.

The Times contains an article this
week calculated to make light of Rep
resentative Kull's legislative record,
but it falls fiat when full knowledge
: of the hill is had. Mr.. Kull's original
+ bill, House File 3S3 was much diff
ferent than the bill as amended by the
, Senate and which bears the name of
the Kull law. The original bill was an
act to prohibit "Any person, company,
partnership or corporation engaged in
the business OF lumber dealing from
combining. ETC." The bill was design
ed to prohibit combinations among the
lumber dealers and was patterned after
bill: which had prove effective in pre-
venting grain combines from freezing
out the independent buyers. When
House Fill 1888 reached the Senate it
was recommended for passage by the
committee on judiciary. When taken
up in the Senate, the scope of the bill
was enlarged by substitute that in
cluded combines to elk prices on any
article of commerce or to prevent the
formation of competition. On the
third reading of the bill a motion was
made to lay the original bill, and the
substitute on the table, which would
have killed the measure, Senator
Burgess and the other lumbermen in
the senate voting aye. (This can be
found on page 1861 of the Journal of
the Senate.) The motion was defeat
ed and the senate substitute was voted
upon and .arried. On the vote on its
final passage in the senate-a body
composed largely of lawyers-but
TWO voted nay or the bill. On it's
final passage in the senate the bill
passed 83 to S.
This brief history of the bill prompts
the following queries:
If the bill is not an addition of
worth to the laws of the state, why,
after the opposition Of the lumbermen
was overcome, did it pass both houses
by so large vote? And if Kull is de-
serving Of no credit, and did nothing,
did the republican senators and repre-
sentatives Gncluding Senator Burgess)
do right in wasting their time by pas
sing useless legislation?
If the law is useless, why did Attor-
ney General Byers, in July, 1909, send
ont letter to the county attorneys of
the state calling attention to the new
criminal laws, in which he said, "while
we should be Jealous in the enforce
ment of the criminal laws Of the state,
we should not overlook the laws en-
acted for the purpose of protecting
the citizen in his purchases Of. the nec-
essaries Of life. l therefore direct
your attention to Sections 506O-5O69 of
Code and Sections 5O2sb to 5O2sh, Code
Supplement, inclusive; also Chapter
225, (The Kull Billy Acts OF the 33d G.
A. This law prohibits every form of
combination and unfair discrimination
for the purpose Of destroying compe-
tition."
If the law is worthless why did the
DesMoines Capital, in commenting on
the bill, say:
'The joke is on the lumbermen of
the Senate, who thought they had
killed Kull's bill by adopting rigid
antitrust substitute aimed at trusts of |
all kinds"
The original Kull bill was almost
Identical with the anti-grain combina-
tion bill enacted into law by the Lum-
herman Senator Smith of Usage. If
anti-grain trust legislation was neces-
sary with Sections 506O-5O62" in
force, why was not additional legisla-
lion needed to cope with combination
IN other lines. Echo asks the lumber
men, Why?
The Times is unfortunate in using the
advanced by the lumber
obby against the Kull bill.