Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 22, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 October 1900 — RECORDS ON TRUSTS [ARTICLE]

RECORDS ON TRUSTS

Comparison of What Parties Have Ootie to Regulate. ORIGIN OF ALL STATUTES History of the Effort to Amend the National Constitution. Defeated by the Votes of the Party to Which Mr. Bryan Looks For Success—That Gentleman’s Own Record While a Member of Congress Where the States Right Doctrine Cuts a Figure—Only Through Republicans Can Effective Remedy Be Secured. —Trust agitation by Mr. Bryan and his political colleagues is energetic but unmeaning.' save to that extent wherein their general policy is an attack on the protective tariff system. .Experience therewith iias in the past proved not only a detriment to trusts but to labor in every avenue of employment. The public generally understands that in four years of control of the government the .Democracy enacted not a syllable of anti-trust legislation and that during Mr. Bryan's service in congress he proposed not one measure for the regulation of such abuses irs may exist. All the anti-trust laws on the statutes are Republican made, a fact which cannot be disputed. Matters of this kind are familiar to the people. But another trust. control agitation was before the last congress and the course of It is well worth reviewing. True to Its promises to the people, the Republicans In the first session of the Fifty-sixth congress attempted to provide a remedy for the trust condition. It was generally conceded that, a constitutional amendment was necessary, if congress was to act, and so at an early day proposed amendments were introduced conferring power on congress to enact anti-trust and antimonopoly laws. These proposed amendments were referred to the committee on the judiciary, and there received most careful consideration.

Early in the session the Democrats asserted that the Republicans would not do anything; that a ‘-bluff” was all that was intended. A suls?-ommittee of that committee was appointed, consisting of three Republicans and two Democrats. The 1 Republicans of that subcommittee reported to the full committee a proposed amendment, which provided that “congress should have power to define, regulate, prohibit or dissolve trusts, monopolies or combinations, whether existing in the form of a corporation or otherwise.” To guard against the Democratic doctrine that “state rights” might be interfered witji this provision was add od: “The several states may Continue to exercise such power in any manner not in conflict with the laws of the United States.” Strange to say. the Democrats in committee opposed (lie proposition on the ground that it was a surrender of a power belonging to the states to the congress of the United States. At> their request a report-(o the house was delayed for weeks, but no substitute was suggested, and finally tlie report was made. Then came the question of consideration in the house itself On Monday, May 21, Mr. Ray, chairman of the committee, asked unanimous consent for consideration for three days, beginning when the Alaska bill, then under debate, should he concluded. To this Mr. Richardson, leader of the Democratic side, objected. This action of the Democrats compelled the Republicans to bring in a rule, which was finally adopted, against/ Democratic opposition. When the proposed amendment came ftp for consideration, under the rule, the Democratic party and press arrayed themselves against it. The vote was taken June 1, 1000. One hundred and fifty-four Voted for the proposed ; amendment and 132 against. Five Democrats voted for and two Republicans hgainst it. As an amendment to the constitution cannot be submitted to the people except on a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress, the proposition to submit to tlie people the question whether congress shall be empowered to n-gulate and control trusts and monopolies was defeated by the fiemocratlc party. In other words, that party in congress refused to allow- tq_ be submitted to the people a proposition to coiifeU on power to' do Just what it now insists Pongreqs should do, and is blaming a Republican congress for not doing. Mr. Bryan is promising to do or have dong If elected, that which the party to which he belongs lias said shall not be don?. *■ The proposition tvns defeated by it on the ground principally that such power should not be conferred on congress at nil. 'ln 1898, in a inane at Chicago, William p Bryau Was advocating a law; 16 be enacted by congress that q Corporation created by the laws of thq state should not be permitted to do business in another until it liad received ‘a license froiti congress to do so. The question was j asked if such a law would be constitutional. 11U reply was that "If not “I j am In favor <■>'( tin* amendment to the j constitution that will give to congress | the power "to J*stroy every trust In the country." When J. Bryan was in congress he belonged to a Committee to which a similar proposition was referred. No report, was made, and he | made no effort to secure a favorable report It Is only fair to assume that

be sympathizes with his party In the doctrine of state rights to the extent that he is unwilling to confer on congress the power to correct these evils when the states cannot or will not enact laws on .the subject. it Is not fair to assume that this cry against the trusts is raised simply for effect at this particular time, and not with any purpose to secure the enactment to laws preventing the evils complained of? It is perfectly clear that if any remedy is to be afforded through national power the election of a Republican congress and a Republican president Is necessary. Only through such a result can the question be submitted to the people and the requisite power vested in the congress of the United States.