The consequence is, competition must be met by "cut-throat" methods. The article is sold for less than cost, and the weaker firms manufacturing it go under. In fact, to use the common American defence, it is a case of "trust or bust "-combination or extinction.

The capitalist Trust is therefore a natural outcome of modern competitive conditions. If it in each instance assumed its form naturally, if it merely restored normal prices and did not resort to oppression and injustice in order to perpetuate its supremacy, there would be no agitation against Trusts, nor would they threaten the commercial and industrial fabric of America.

The Trust tends to depress the price of raw material, for one thing, and so injure the market for the farmer.1

It is futile to try and abolish Trusts; it is flying in the face of economic evolution and the possibilities of production; but you can regulate them, just as you can and do regulate banking and insurance.

In 1890 an Act was passed by Congress "to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies," which is now commonly known as the Anti-Trust Act. It provides that :

"Every contract combination in the form of Trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or Steel Trust's moderation. It is afraid of rousing the public to anti-tariff legislation. If it abused its advantage, its monopoly would disappear by the abatement of the Protectionist duties.

1 Professor Graham thinks that under the Trust system in the future production will be largely increased and wages "might be as high as at present, though the trade unions would occupy a less strong position than they now did to enforce their desires by a strike. The employment of the working classes would probably be more steady, though their sense of independence must not be so strong."

commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal."

The passage of this Act was thought by many to herald the downfall of the iniquitous Trust. But there was soon seen to be grave difficulties in the way of its practical enforcement.

To begin with, the sole authority of Congress to legislate upon the subject is found in the constitutional provision that it shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. Unless, therefore, a "Trust" restrains commerce with foreign nations or among the several States, or, as it is called, interstate commerce, it is not within the scope of the Act, which has no relation to transactions within the boundaries of an individual State.

This interpretation was first settled publicly in 1894 by the Supreme Court in an action brought by the Government under the Act. It appeared that by the absorption of numerous other companies a certain corporation had secured control throughout the country of the manufacture of refined sugar. It was therefore charged that there was a combination or conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce, in that it contemplated that refined sugar should be sold in States other than those in which it was produced. Nevertheless, the Court decided (one member dissenting) that the question where the sugar would ultimately be shipped was without importance; the acquisition by the Trust of sugar refineries was merely an act done within the State where they were situated, and was not an act in restraint of interstate commerce, even though it might indirectly affect such commerce. The Supreme Court pointed out that

if the latter circumstance alone brought transactions within the purview of the Federal power, the National Government would control to the exclusion of the States 'substantially everything of importance in business operations and affairs." On the contrary, it held that contracts, combinations, and conspiracies to control domestic enterprise in manufacturing, agriculture, mining, or production in all its forms, or to raise or lower prices or wages, are not within the prohibition of the Statute, although they may tend to restrain external as well as domestic trade. Congress did not attempt to limit and restrict the rights of corporations created by the States, or the citizens of the States, in the acquisition, control, or disposition of property, or to regulate or prescribe the price or prices at which the property or the products thereof shall be sold.1

Other cases were tried before the Supreme Court, and it was soon rendered evident that so far as its efficacy went in restraining the growth of the Trusts, the Anti-Trust law was almost a dead letter.2 The rule was laid down that facilities furnished, or services rendered, in connection with the transaction of interstate commerce, are not a part of that commerce, and agreements

1 In this construction of the Anti-Trust Act, the Court therefore held that the various processes of production are antecedent to and distinct from interstate commerce; that commerce begins after production has ceased and when the product commences its final movement from the State of its origin to the State of its destination. All this hair-splitting clearly shows the obstacles which the American people as a whole and the national power have to

overcome.

2 "In the United States we have inherited (from Great Britain) this same slowness of political growth, and it is favoured by our obstructive written Constitution, which is characterized by the Hamiltonian forethought of hindering legislation or amendment to the extent, it may be feared, of hindering healthy progress."-Professor A. Watkins.

or combinations to fix or maintain the charges for such facilities or services are not within the four corners of the Act. The construction which the latter has thus received makes plain how narrow is its scope, and that few except those engaged directly in the business of interstate transportation are affected by its provisions.

Yet the terms of the Anti-Trust Act are said to cover everything regarding which Congress has the constitutional power to act. In one of his annual messages to Congress, President McKinley said, "It will be perceived that the Act is aimed at every kind of combination in the nature of Trust or monopoly in restraint of interstate or international commerce."

Congress, then, can do no more than it has done in the way of Statutes. It is helpless, unless to direct severer processes of inquiry and heavier penalties.

Producers may combine to limit production or control prices; those furnishing services or facilities in the transaction of interstate commerce as above described may combine to fix the price and extent of such facilities or services; the consignees may combine to control the price of their services or the number of persons engaged in the business; but none of these operations are comprehended in the Statute.1

What, then, do we see? Simply, that the National Government has no powers save those expressed in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. It is idle for the ill-informed American opponent of Trusts

1 Yet, to show how far the State Courts are ready to go, we have the remarkable decision of the Illinois "Supreme " Court, by which the Associated Press (an organization similar to Reuter's Agency or the Central News) is ordered to sell its news to any newspaper that may apply.

to demand-what he is always demanding-the enforcement of the Anti-Trust Act; he should look into his rigid Constitution and perceive that the objects of his repugnance do not come within the constitutional jurisdiction or legislative powers of the nation or within the prohibition of the nation's law.

Unless the Supreme Court consent to a more helpful interpretation, America may yet wake up to the consciousness that her commerce is being muzzled by her eighteenth-century Constitution.

Considering the threatening nature of the Trusts, it is not surprising that their abatement should form a mighty political issue. Yet the Anti-Trust crusade is confined to neither political party. But how differently do they approach it-how different are the remedies proposed! The Republican leaders can hardly be sincere in wishing the earning power of the Trusts curtailed, and they must have listened to President Roosevelt's recent speeches with something like consternation until they were convinced that the President carefully avoided naming a remedy.'

1 At Pittsburg, in 1902, President Roosevelt made the following remarkable speech :

แ "Especially great and especially difficult are the problems caused by the growth and concentration of great individual, and, above all, of great corporate fortunes. It is immensely for the interests of the country that there should be such individual and corporate wealth as long as it is used aright, and where it is not used aright then it becomes a serious menace and danger. The instruments and the methods with which we are to meet these new problems must in many cases themselves be new. But the purpose lying behind the use of these methods and instruments must, if we are to succeed, be now, as in the past, simply in accord with the immutable laws of order, justice, and right. We may need, and it is my belief that we shall need, new legislation, conceived in no radical or revolutionary spirit, but in the spirit of common sense and common honesty, and with a resolute desire to face facts as they are. In the solution of these difficult problems we need a character that

M