9 '
.
The Commoner.
&PRIL. 17, 1903.
S v '.
5
Northern Securities Case.
The opinion delivered by the United States
Court of appeals in the Northern Securities case is
a vigorous rebuke to men who would conspire
against public interests by engaging in what Mr.
Roosevelt calls "the inevitable process of eco
nomic evolution," otherwise and more properly
Jmown as trust organization.
If sustained by the supreme court, to which
cour,t the case will, of course, be taken, the deci
sion of" the court of appeals will result in the
complete destruction of the Northern Securities
company, which is the name for the trust ac
complished by the merger of the Northern Pa
cific Railroad company and the Great Northern
Railroad company.
In its opinion the court of appeals goes direct
ly to the point when it says that the claim that
the rate fixed by a combination or a trust is rea
sonable is of no importance. According td the
court, the vice of such a combination is that it
confers the power to establish unreasonable rates
and directly restrains commerce by placing ob
stacles in the way of free and unrestricted compe
tition. According to the court, the New Jersey char
ter which this combination holds, does not give it
authority to violate the federal anti-trust law. The
purpose of this merger, in the opinion of the
court of appeals, was to destroy every motive for
competition between two roads engaged in inter
state traffic and the merger is declared to be a
trust. The court also says that while the anti
trust law applies to interstate carriers of freight
and passengers, it applies to all other persons,
natural or artificial; and it is further pointed out
that the anti-trust law may not be violated by
any device such as entrusting the stock of rival
roads to one person with instructions how to
vote it, the court declaring-that "the result would
have been a combination in direct restraint of in- ,
terstate commerce because it gave power' to sup
press competition."
The court bluntly declares that the conten
tion that if, the proposed merger is held to be in
violation of the anti-trust law, then that law un
duly restricts the rights of individuals to make
contracts and is therefore invalid, is entitled to
small consideration. On this point the court says
that, the constitutional provision v.ith respect to
contracts does not exclude congress from legislat
ing with respect to contracts that seek to destroy
competition and to antagonize public interests.
On the contrary, the court declares:
"The provision regarding the liberty of the
citizen is to some extent limited by the com
merce clause of the constitution, and that .the
power of congress to regulate interstate com
merce comprises the right to enact a law pro
hibiting the citizen from entering into tnose '
private contracts which directly and sub
stantially, and do not merely, indirectly, re
motely, incidentally and collaterally, regulate
to a greater or less degree "the commerce
among the states."
J. Pierpont Morgan has already announced
that the case -will be appealed to the1 supremo
court. He expresses confidence that it will be
reversed by that tribunal. At the same time, he
says: "When railroad men know exactly how the
law is to be interpreted, they will probably find
good ways to see that properties are operated
economically and profitably.'1 A fair interpreta
tion of this is that whatever the .decision of the
supreme court, the . trust 'magnates will find a
method of violating the law without laying them
selves liable.
The decision of the court of appeals will bo
accepted as an eminently just one by all who are
really opposed to the trust system; and Mr. Mor
gan and his associates may yet learn that al
though the lawyers employed by the trust mag
nates may be ingenious in "finding good ways tq
see that properties are operated economically"
and profitably," the people, in whose interests
laws are presumed to be enacted, may find "good
"ways" to see that .those laws are vigorously en
forced, in spite -of the ingenuity of high-priced
lawyers and the powerful influences of trust magnates.
Election of Senators by the People
The proposition that United1 States senators
be elected by- direct vote of the people has" the
cordial support of the rank and file of all politi
cal .parties. To be sure, there are many republl-
can politicians who do riot take kindly to the
suggestion and the republican United States sen
ate has shown its determination to prevent the
accomplishment of this important reform. But so
strong Is tho sentiment among the people that
even republican legislatures have recognized tho
sentiment and have given indorsement to tho plan.
The Nebraska legislature is republican and
although legislation was very generally controlled -by
tho corporations, public sentiment was so
strongly in favor of the election of senators by
the people thatuno Nebraska assembly, recently
adjourned, adopted the following:
"Resolved, That it is deemed necessary to
amend the constitution of tho United States
so as to make provision therein for tho elec
tion of United States senators by direct vote
of the people. ,
Sec. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of
article five (5) of tho constitution of the
United States, application Js hereby made to
the congress of tho United States to call a con
vention to propose an amendment to the con
stitution of tho United States providing for .
the election of United States senators by di
rect vote of the people.
Sec. 3. That a cbpy of this joint resolu-
tion be sent to each senator and representa
tive from the state of Nebraska in tho con
gress of tho United States and to each pro
siding officer of the senate and house compos
ing the congress."
In 1901 the Michigan legislature adopted a
resolution asking congress to call a convention
for the purpose of proposing an amendment to
the constitution providing for tho election of sen
ators by popular vote. A similar resolution has
been adopted by legislatures as follows: Mon
tana in 1903, Texas in 1903, Missouri in 1903,
Pennsylvania In 1901, Kansas in 1903, Utah in
1903, Nevada in 1903, Tennessee in 1901, Cali
fornia in 1903, Oregon in 1903, Florida in 1901,
Washington in 1903, North Carolina in 1901, Min
nesota in 1901, Idaho in 1903f South Dakota in
1903.
In 1901 a similar resolution was introduced
in tho lower house of the North Dakota legisla
ture. That resolution passed the house and on
being sent to the senate was referred to the ju
diciary committee, but it was never reported and
hence failed of passage.
The resolution was introduced in the lower
house of the Massachusetts legislature and was
.referred to the committee on federal relations.
The resolution was introduced in the Wiscon
sin legislature and is pending there.
The resolution was introduced in the New'
York legislature, but no action was taken by
either house.
In the Indiana legislature the resolution was
introduced in the house and was defeated.
' The resolution was "not introduced in the
Georgia legislature. The same is true of tho leg
islatures of New Hampshire, Alabama, Wyoming,
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maine and Connecti
cut The resolution passed the lower house of the
Delaware legislature, but was defeated in the
senate.
JJJ
Reciprocity.
The National Reciprocity league, with head
quarters in the Adams Express building, Chicago,
publishes a caustic criticism of the republican
party's action on the reciprocity question. It
quotes the following resolution adopted by the
Protective Tariff league last January:
"Resolved, That reciprocity in competitive
products by treaty Is unsound In principle,
pernicious in practice and condemned by all
experience. It is contrary alike to the prin
ciple of protection, to the fair treatment of
domestic producers, and to friendly relations
with foreign countries.' It is neither ethical
nor economic, since it seeks to benefit some
Industries by the sacrifice of others, which is
the essence of Injustice. As-at present advo
t cated, reciprocity Is the policy of favoritism.
It would tend to array industry against In
dustry and section against section at home,
and foment Industrial retaliation and politi
cal antagonism abroad. Such a policy would
open the door to the grossest favoritism In
legislation, promote the growth of a cor
rupting lobby, and increase the power of de-
basing bossism. Such a policy has no jus-
tification in economics, statesmanship, ethics
or good politics. True" American policy is
protection of all the opportunities and possibil-
Ities of tho American market for American on
torpriso, and fair, equal treatment for all other
countriesnamely, tho equal right to com
peto for American businoss in tho American
markot by tho payment of tho full equivalent
of American wages. This nlono is honest pro
tection, good republicanism and tho IrUo
American policy."
. It also points to Sonator Aldrich's interpre
tation of President McKlnley's speech. Mr. Ald
rlch says: "We might, perhaps, mako reciprocity
treaties with other countries with respect to ion
competitive products." Tho "reciprocity loaguo "
points out that both Mr. McKinloy and Mr. Blalno
understood that reciprocity was to apply to othor
than non-competitive products It nlso quote's
Reed as saying: "So with reciprocity treaties.
Framed in the mind they exchange only commodi
ties that ono of tho countries produces and tho
other does not. This seems pluln. But no real
reciprocity bill or' treaty over could do any such'
thing, or ever really tried to."
Tho reciprocity league concludes its argument
with tho following: '
"Ono who watches tho progress of public
affairs and belioves that political parties
should carry out their pledges to the people,
will bo amazed at tho spectacle presented in'
tho United States senate.
"Today the republican senators, with
mallco aforethought, are deliberately, openly,
defiantly and in tho most brazen manner guilty
of violating their party's pledges, Its plat
forms, its traditions and its great leaders'
teacnings. The American people are slow to
wrath, 'but when their wrath is once kindled,
it burns like a consuming flame."
It seems that tho republican party has broken
Its pledge on several occasions, but this, of course,
will not subject It to criticism at the hands of
those who believe, as some of the republicans
seem to, that their party can do no wrong.
JJJ
A Pool of flonopoly.
The National Economic league, with headquar
ters in New York, has started out to settle tho
questions now before the public by a "non-partisan".
Investigation. An examination of tho "in
dorsements, however, would indicate that it is
going to settle them. on tho side of organized
wealth. For instance, Mr. J. H. Manly of tho
republican national committee gives a glowing in
dorsement of the league, saying: "Your work Is
one which the employers of labor and tho prop- .
orty-holding interests of the country cannot fail
to support. It will do much in tho future to har
monize the relations existing between labor and
capital. The belief that, capital Is robbing labor
and that the wage-earner does not receive his
just share of the profits is an erroneous one, and
results from a wrong education and a lack of
knowledge regarding the truo state of existing
facts." It would seem to be tho work of tho
league, therefore, to convinco the public that the
laborer is getting his full share, which means
that the trusts are not getting any more than
their share. Mr. Albert Clark, of tho Homo
Market club, is alarmed, and says: "Revolution
ary Ideas have been gaining such rapid head-way
in recent years in many of tho cities and large
towns of the United States, that It Is high tlmo
for property to better insure Itself by enlighten
ing public opinion. The splendid work of the Na
tional Economic league in its campaign of educa
tion should be sustained financially by every good
citizen of the United States." Some of the persons
whose names are advertised as officials In tho
league, or indorsers of its work, have doubtless
been deceived by tho purposes of the league,, but
they will find, unless Indications fail, that the edu
cational work is a very one-sided work paid for
by the men who are using the government for
private advantage and who are trying to still the
rising protest ' -
JJJ ,
Jones' Great Race.
Of all the triumphs in the recent municipal
contests none was so purely a personal triumph as
that achieved by "Golden" Rule" Jones of Toledo.
Nominated a fourth time by petition, with no
party organization back of him and with both a
republlean and a democratic candidate against
him, with nearly all the papers Ignoring him and
bosoming his opponents, he won an easy victory
and has the satisfaction of proving again that a .
man in politics can get along without about ev
erything else if he can only keep the people with A
him. Jones is a lovable man; he has a great, big
heart and .the people trust him.
wiXunt!&hJuK..
