The debate re-opened on March 24th with a speech by Senator Turpie, of Indiana. He said, "The purpose of the bill of the Senator from Ohio is to nullify the agreements and obligations of the trusts; of these fraudulent combinations. I favor it. There is another purpose, to give to parties injured a civil remedy in damages for injury inflicted. I am in favor of that." Having thus

stated his views, he then spoke of the aid he expected to be given by the favorable construction of the courts. Senator Pugh, of Alabama, next spoke of the “magnitude and the oppressive and merciless character of the evils resulting directly to consumers," and indorsed the propriety of the original Sherman bill in stopping this evil. Hereupon, Senator Reagan3 offered his addition to the Sherman bill, which made connection of any sort with a trust a criminal offense, and liable to a fine and imprisonment; and which defined a trust as a combination of capital, skill or acts, for the purpose of creating a restriction in trade, limiting production or increasing prices, preventing competition, fixing a standard price, creating a monopoly, contracting not to enter an industry, or to enter an agreement whereby prices are affected. A general debate ensued on these proposals, during which objection was brought out against the criminal features, especially since it was agreed that the bill at present included farmers' and workmens' associations.

Senator Stewart, of Nevada, at this time, made the only speech in the Senate adverse to the spirit of the Sherman bill. He insisted that combination was a necessary element in modern life, illustrating his point by reference to the failure of England to carry out such

1Congr. Rec., 1890, vol. 21, p. 2556. $ Ibid., p. 2560.

'Ibid., p. 2561.

5

2 Ibid., p. 2558. Ibid., pp. 2564 et seq.

laws. The only means by which such combinations could be regulated, he concluded, was by counter combinations on the part of the people.

The next speaker was Senator Hoar, who criticised. the bill sharply, on the ground that at present it included but a very small part of the offenses of combinations, and that it failed to give a proper remedy to those injured by combinations.' Hereafter ensued further criticisms of the ineffectiveness of the proposed bill, especially on the part of Senators Vest, Hiscock, and Teller.

The debate was resumed on March 25th, as in committee of the whole.

Senator George pointed out in emphatic language the importance of the subject before them. "It is a sad thought to the philanthropist that the present system of production is having that tendency which is sure at some not very distant day to crush out all small men, all small capitalists, all small enterprises." And then he inquired "Is production, is trade, to be taken away from the great mass of the people and concentrated in the hands of a few men who, I am obliged to add, by the policies pursued by our government, have been enabled to aggregate to themselves large enormous fortunes?" 2

He then moved the reference of the original bill and all the proposed amendments to the judiciary committee. This, however, was objected to by a number of speakers, on various grounds; especially by Senator Reagan, who desired his addition to be voted on by the Senate, and by Senators Wilson, Sherman and Pugh who feared such a move would prolong the time of the pas

Congr. Rec., 1890, vol. 21, pp. 2567 et seq.

1

3

3 Ibid., p. 2600.

"Ibid., p. 2598.

I

sage of any bill. And Senator Stewart again objected to the passage of the bill, on the ground that it took away "the sacred right of coöperation." Next, Senators Platt and Morgan advocated the reference, on the ground that the present bill was entirely ineffective. And when the vote was taken, it was found that the motion was lost, 15 yeas against 28 nays."

Thereupon, a vote was taken on adding the Reagan amendment to the Sherman bill; this was carried, by 34 yeas against 12 nays.

The Senate at this time agreed to an amendment offered by Senator Sherman,3 to add to Section I a proviso excluding from the ban of the act combinations of labor, agriculture or horticulture. It then agreed to a number of amendments offered by different Senators; by Senator Reagan, permitting suits to be brought in state as well as federal courts; by Senator Hoar, to apply the act to combinations of persons or corporations of the same state, if they prevent free competition; by Senator Ingalls, preventing dealings in options and futures, by laying burdensome taxes and conditions on these privileges. Next, Senator Coxe, of Texas, offered an amendment to all the bills proposed, except that of Senator Ingalls. This bill described and denounced trusts, and forbade the transportation of articles pro

1

Congr. Rec., 1890, vol. 21, p. 2606.

2 Ibid., p. 2611.

Ibid., p. 2611. "Provided, that this act shall not be construed to apply to any arrangements, agreements or combinations between laborers, made with the view of lessening the number of hours of labor, or of increasing their wages; nor to any arrangements, agreements, or combinations in horticulture or agriculture made with the view of enhancing the price of agricultural or horticultural products."

duced by a trust in one state into other states; moreover, it gave to the President the power of suspending the tariff on any articles manufactured by a trust. However, it was defeated by a vote of 26 to 16.'

During the debate on March 26th, two amendments of importance were added. The first of these was that proposed by Senator Spooner,' giving to the court the power of issuing an injunction against all persons connected with a trust, forbidding them to carry on the business, and applying severe remedies. After a lengthy debate, this was agreed to.3 The second was an addition to section I, proposed by Senator Aldrich,+ providing that the act should not apply to combinations which, by means other than a reduction of wages, lowered the cost of production or prices of any necessaries of life, or increased the earnings of any persons engaged in useful employments. This also was agreed to.

Hereafter a number of additions to the articles in which "futures" were prohibited were passed, to such an extent as to justify Senator Sherman's outbreak 5 that "the amendments which have been put upon this bill in the last few minutes are such as simply bring it into contempt, and the manner in which this has been done tends to bring the whole bill into contempt."

Despite this, more minor amendments were proposed, some of which were agreed to and others rejected, until, on March 27th, the bill was reported from the committee of the whole, and the amendments considered by the Senate. In connection with the amendment to exclude from the ban of the act combinations of laborers, farmers

and horticulturists, Senator Edmunds expressed his views at some length.

I am in favor, most earnestly in favor, of doing anything that the Constitution of the United States has given Congress power to do, to repress and break up and destroy forever the monopolies of that character, [i. e., Sugar Trust and Standard Oil] because in the long run, however seductive they may appear in lowering prices to the consumer, for the time being, all human experience and all human philosophy has proved that they are destructive of the public welfare and come to be tyrannies, grinding tyrannies.'

But he argued that the bill at present went beyond the constitutional power of Congress. The Constitution, he pointed out,

did not give to the Congress of the United States, and it did not mean to give, and it ought not to have given it, and ought not to give to it now, I think, the power to enter into the police regulations of the people of the United States, to endeavor to conduct or to manage or to regulate their affairs as the states, in every state of the Union, have been authorized -not authorized, but left by the Constitution in their original right to do so."

The true relation between capital and labor, he stated, was an equation. To allow laborers to combine for higher wages, and not allow employers to combine for higher prices, he concluded, was inequitable, and sure to break down. And Senator Platt also believed the present bill to be unconstitutional. Moreover, he thought that it did not distinguish adequately between proper combinations and those of a predatory character. Thereupon, on a motion by Senator Walthall, the Senate by a 'Ibid., p. 2727.

1

1 Congr. Rec., 1890, vol. 21, p. 2726.