W1"... ‘ ' .I'I‘I‘W'WIY‘WIIF' IT 9 :r 'fl" .L'...'I'.I.U‘I U'.'.V" v'-( 'O'J..'O I I - OIIIIII Io - I-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'WIII , I IIIII'IIOIIIIIIIII'I .. IIIIIIIIIIz'I:I ."\\.:QIIOJ‘.]‘CIOQI‘I IIIIIIIIIIIIII‘MIIOIIIIQ'ICII I'IIQ'OI'III.I.IrfO‘QCI|.05-‘j..g1..h'1 IIIIIIIIIII IIIII I .‘OI.IO".J..'.I.OCI"I.CO.Q'I"Q‘II‘ . I "°"IIIMIIIIIIIIIIOIIODIII‘ I I I IIIIIIIIII-III I IIIIII II'IIII'II IIIIII IIIIIIIII.IIII.IIIIII II IIIIIIIIIII “°.'1I...Q'."O.COO III I I‘IIIIIIIIIIII 00"...‘OIII II I-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIII I‘I'QIIOOIIOI.V'§I‘" I I III. I ~ I I IIIIIIIIIIIIII....I.O O'.O.I'.I. II'I‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ... I IIII,I.II ‘QI cg. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII.'CI'COI'IIUOOQI..‘."""‘....‘. I~ IIIIIIII I“!IIIIIm‘IOOIII'I'O‘I-I'¢I|I. IIII 'IIIIQIO‘IOII I I I IIII IIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I.""§O|8II|IfI'.01 IIIII.I'IIII‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 'III'O|I 'Q’.‘..O'QIY".O|“ 'OOIIIIYIIIV'I'I3II'II‘I'I'IOIHIOIOI.I_.' II 'IIIII IIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I IIIII IOI'IIIOI..."' .QI' IIIIII IQQQJIII"II'\I'OIIIIIIIIQ“ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII-“IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIII I.IIII'HIIIIIIIII '..I.D.' on. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I IIIIIIHIIIIIIQIIIIIqogoII II 'O'ICOC'OUJO‘.IO.QO.'.'I*'QOOICDIIIOIOJ‘I.IQIQOOIII’IIQfI‘VQIIIOQr IIIIII'IIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II III IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII- II'IOIIIIONIIOIIOIIIIUIIIOIIQI'II'OIIIIIIIIJ IIII II""I'I#JI.. IV IIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I'IHIIIIO "CO'....O III.- IIIOHM'OIUOOII','I‘II'IODIIOI|OII.I III .I"....' I49'I0'"°90‘909I'..O‘IV‘I"'III...O’I.I Q'OI."‘O‘I‘QO'I.O“.OV,IIIT'." I IIII II I I 'I‘ II I I I II I I I I I.‘IIOOI.‘I‘IQIVII"...I’IC.‘.'C"O“'.I'OI.‘;" IIIIIIIIII‘II'I II IIIIIIII'IIIIII I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIII §"‘.III I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIlIIIIyIlIIIoIJIIvIIIIIIIIIIII I 'I III‘OII'IZIIIOOIIIIIII. I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIcIV IIIIIIIIIIIIII II'IIoflIIIII_ .D"". III I I‘IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- I II' VQO‘ODIII.“ I III-I: '."I..O."II'III‘I'.\Q‘...OI.' IIIWIII I.IIII - ‘1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII‘IIIIfIIII IIIIII..IIII IIIIIIII;III'II ' I". I .“W IIIIII I'M-I. O ‘ 6 t O O 9 O O u C o O o O O ‘ ‘ 0; O O O O. ‘0 - O - 4 0-. O Q .- . I ‘ . I - . C .- O O C J o O C C o o C C “ . A . ‘ O.‘ IIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIIII‘IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII' I «VIIIII‘I IIIIIIII° I‘I'IIIIIIIIO I IIIIIIMIIIOIIIHOIIIIIIIII;II IrIIIIIIIIII‘III-II I IIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIII-II IIIII'I 'I'II IIIIIIS'H . I I'I-IIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIII 'III I MIIIIIII 'II IIIIIIIzooIII II'I I . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIo I IIIIISWOI. “If-I]... . I III I-IIIQIIIIIIIIIII-IIII I ‘I'II I , I _ «9.....m ’. 0". I .. II. 'lII-"IIII'I‘IIIIIOI'IIIII-IIPI I‘O‘II IIIHIIII'III‘II . - ~II'I'III-o\‘II‘IIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIII I I III II 0". IIII "'H -I- "I""'¢I' II'IIIIIIaII‘hIIIOIIIWIIII'VI‘ I-I.IIIIIIIIII..II -I~ .I'I'0I‘0I-IOII'III....:'.III""I..‘0. II' ‘I. g... -~w'“'Io III-I'III-IIII ‘V"'I°'0IIIIII IIIIIIIIII-II IM‘I'OIQUICOOIQIIOIQQ I, .“ .- IOIIII'IIIIIII'I'Q‘OI.|Q‘QIQ ”I II I IIIIII I l I III I I I I '- ‘o-ooII . I¢IIIIIIIIIIII\I- IIII-IIIIIII O'WIIIOOIII. '::II'I.:“III In I IIoIIII IIIIIIII 'QIHWICIIOOIOOC III I III . - «h IgIII..III|III‘III‘II” ' ‘ - --a. -IIII--I I ..II. 'HI~ A, ,P -- IIIIcI-IKIIIIIIII- ‘t -III‘fI:II..I‘I" ‘I " -_-..\.,|. ...... -IIIIIIIIIIIIIgIIIIII ‘ ~\:". w’IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDI 'l.I".OQ’.O.II'.O.I ' II I “CI 0 Iv . ., -. '- II I II- IIII I ”III. .I I. IIIQI I'IIQQIIII , ,__. II‘IOI' II I IIIIIIIII I .5... lo IIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIII I 5110 - I I I ' I I J I I I I I I I I HI I . . ' ~ ‘ . I I .I.I.:.: .1 I I.' I I ’ . II . '. ‘ .‘ I O 0 I‘a - '. i 'I ‘g .3 ‘7’. ‘ y :A' 1:8: RU . . ... q'.‘. I... I I “z. D O I ' - 'III.I III lila ' M 3““ {Iii lama I IIII II I .5 .. . M“. I: I 4' I’I' . III 'IUIIIII':III1 QIOOIII. I: I IIIIT M'QIOI'IO‘IO'OOOOO m... ‘ I. . . I - III I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I I . I I I IIIII‘j'..|I.|I...?O'OJ'»OQI| I WIIIIII M‘,.VOOO'OII'OI . ,I4III.-~Ip I.II\ I G)M‘IIIOOIGIIOQOOV1IIII .IIK"..‘.‘ . vIIIIII--.¢IIIIIII~II-II.I.I.4.I .2,“ 7)::fg IIII IIII IIII 0"...0.OOWOOU -: ~1IIIII'II J 0.. I , 0::I. IOII'IO’QIIIQII.OQI)IIIOIIY I It I - .I \"'.°M'IIII UI'IIOMIIOIIIOOIQJII I I o I I I I oIvII yIOIII . ,Il..y"..ln....‘.. . .I‘OI‘Q' .‘D"..‘...'.....'."'J.."‘ _ II I - II..I II I .'....C“OIOI"V.C'Q..IOI'.I‘.“)DI,) I a IIIIIIIIII o..II...Q.II OOOQII|:'.0I,’. III. I 4' II I II IIII I .0 WIUIQOOOOOIOOOIIIIJII : ' -,.. I... I I - I I' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII‘II II... II'19090'I IIII-IIIII"..9.’IHQIIIIIII'Q W'..I'I4‘o I I J I II'IW?II"I'I III VWIIIIDIIOCJIAC -H II"IO‘I~ '.°I-I. I ~‘I' II IIrI w.IQ.UOI..OUOC‘..O'QQQ’COIIIt‘IOO‘ ., I. . Iv IIIII'I'IMIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIII.I- II IIIIIIIIIIII CHVOCIOWIII. II IIII IIIII .I.'I I . I I I II II IIOWOIO.00.1.QmilQOIIJ‘OYQ1'. IIIIIII: ' 57.)! I -I'-I '"'“‘I‘IIIIIII‘I\IIIIIIIIOIOIIIIO III 9II°"‘IICO|WII’QCIQ '1 .IIIII.II..IIIIIIIII I I. I II 1 1"IIOWQOCOOJCO.CQU..'..‘I.‘Q.#I'OII" I ‘ |. '~;/IpI-‘I IOIIO. 00"....5'Y.'.0.'..I."... III I] I III I) 3"" ”IOOCOCQCO 0‘ - (I'I IIoIIIIWIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInpu O“IQ'HO“OOOOOCHOCCO‘OUJOMC‘OCCO"C".2 "..‘I‘.".. I, I: II II'I'IQ'IIOJII‘IIOOWIQIJII.IJ J 0' "ICOIOQO .0 ° II-I-I' I II IO...I.O‘;.’.:::M'I'I'.I.“‘II ’OOOIOO'...:;_;...."‘..J"‘II‘CJIA IIIIIIIII‘II.I~II I II I I . II IIIW‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IXIVII‘I‘O L ‘(Il II~ IIII-IIII'I~IIOIIIIIIIIIIIIII.III II U.'”90'......‘CO‘OOOIOOO." ° ‘ "".0’IIINI.IIJ'II‘:O . 'IQOOQIDIOCIOIU¢. m...g.ooo I..4¢I.I. III ' ....,I I. 1-"! I ~IIIIIII ‘1”. OHIIIDI I II'III;.IIII..IIII‘QY‘£I ‘ c2“.“‘..0"I..I‘II.H.:OOIQII T‘IQQIG I: w.‘.‘..‘...‘.. I’ I I .qIIIIIIIIIoII-I I I I: S, ' .I I II-lWIO'IIIcuuloI ..-I-II-III-I‘IIIIWIIIIIIIII . I] ‘MOWIDI- 4 ‘I' IIWIII'II-I-o-v I I - ‘ IIII H*;A II I "W"..‘CCDOQ'I ,.II.I n I I II I MIIIIIIIII .I‘J.‘ IIIII.IIIII....II..J IIIII '..IO|"|"QII"IIIMII'- .I.. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'. I III WWI ‘III III. ‘- II I . II‘III‘ ‘ v. ' I .II I H".£30M50036‘000"8' ; 1-..IO‘...9II.I.III...I..I II':_ _ I III "I'IIIIIIIIocooII 0999...: O IIIIIIIIIIIII Iuo -.I III IQICIs V" 7,1 1' I " "I'0M‘WIJ‘ I . .lI-II 0. ‘I"OOI..I.II.C. 1'- ' XI.» ‘, Nfl’III‘IIIDIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0*”CIO' 'IIQIIIIIIII. .v... I o . I - ,1‘»...__‘0 a ‘°.£'IQOO.“‘303 .aI'III "ti' ".".‘W.I."9’.OIOIIUIIIU"I'I'I' * *‘W‘9CIIIIIIIstJIIISI "“ h ~ I‘IIIIIIWIII.III.‘I.. ;;I. III IIIIIIOOIIrIWIIIoIIII. I I‘OOQIIOOCQIalz ‘ 'II-I‘.II I "II'IIII.OQI...IQOOJOJI II ’IIlw‘WII..I”IIAIJIIII ‘ 1‘ 9 I II.VV‘IIW'O'ICIOIII'II'I‘0II.I‘I I ... "‘ 'WIIIIIIIIIIIIII. I I I'IIIQIOOIIIOA‘ - -IIII.'IIII '1 I' I'II IIIIIIIIWIIIII I I'VSQM"?QOOIOI.O.IOI I P ,.\.o; IIWI-II|-‘IIIJOQQIIIIIIII\ 'W‘..9.”‘..IDQOOIII I I I I IIOSOOIOII 3 .I...|..I...I|'II'I 09.....Q0Q'JI 3 3 0'. ...'."‘..".:‘.H‘...“J..‘ ' “ 'LJ . -'~I .IlIII‘m‘-.COOIOIC‘.IJIII rIWI"‘WQ‘.OV.O.|‘OI.JII I ’9..'.J0 ‘ I‘III IIIIIIIIIII-I . I I IIII'IflIwIIOSIoIIIII )II "'.M'....OOAAIII IrIIIooo- .... V.I";‘.II;.I"."O.QOIIQI.II.IJI I II'WM'OOOOCOQOI II'e'IIIIOII '0'0“'9."'HVOHII'II I II I I I 'OM‘OCOCCIOOOOI I I "w",....I“‘l 'H'O'IIOIII. . I 'I.'TM00I.O.OOOUQV.OQII III. Q:QI;P.W.OOIOOQQQQO‘.tQJ IIIVIl I ;- | I vo ‘5‘“"0"IOCIQ’I.‘.I. l .IH'VOOO.....’IISII I 9“..W.‘...OI .IIIII '0.."A.I| D “W'WOI-IQOJI.'UI‘ 00.9‘IV9I‘.W . a I III- I .I ' Iv~ I IlWilllO!""QIQQIQIJ. III ‘I-‘IVOQQIOM...O$‘ III... ’I'YYQ”IIOIIII’ .' I‘.."I'.:'.I’:"UCI“'II, I’p I 'I.I.C~.Iv.&:‘DIJII-II I! ‘I|""?...“OI I I 9‘3" {'01" --- ‘ ' ...'.l..‘W....§CO" I “.5QOWOOI|.O6I.S‘.I O"’9..-._.....AI o. IV'OIWOIII'IIII... 4 - . 1"...L....I.'IQJ.£5‘ IT 9 OIMIIoolna..I~%}EQC I I I I I I I - . I I - I ' 0 ° ‘ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . A I I.1.V I :‘I I I I I I I .‘O'....I'l.t ;.I.I.I.!.I.I “‘9'. Q I"..O'€- V"0QCI'IIIO II I II I-IIIII I l I I 19- , I' I III . .‘ “W"..q.’ ....‘-j {.'.9!’... I J i "HIQO.‘IOOOOIIII I I II 'WI'OOOOOOOOCIO‘ II I v .x'QOO-OIIVI.‘-.I .. . ' 0 .‘L I I .IIII I II'III‘I 0", 1 ' ”'WOIIIJQOQQO .o-: o- ; . “IIIIIHOIOIQ‘.QIJOI I). III. IOOHIIIII 5-; . O ! v..;.oo I """IIIIII0HIIIOIISA IIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIJ II I'QW"OQI\I 33' I‘ I o-I...I......‘..,.. ._ 1"‘W“IJ.)1‘I \III”:OQCII0.”0.5;0 t .0... 'IooII I'I . J‘II-IIIIIIIIIIQAI.QIII 9°0I90IIIOII I I' .XIOIHH‘WI -I.- ... I III IIII'cII. I I ‘W."IIO.J§I v I H’OVOC’OO“.J‘9 ' . 'I‘I'III'IH“‘ . " ‘OW..“VQ'.IQCCJJ|&I I I IWOIIIIIIIJQIIIII ’IO‘Iancflsl ,... .. IWIIIIIIIIO'IIII. III . IQQm'QI'OI'Qdod‘l; I30 IIIIIIIII5.. ‘39! .9 ,.I.I'...Q“'.._.. ., I I’MIIIIIIIQQ...... I ’112_‘~‘.‘:_..‘.;‘.3|.II0Q .‘. YIYQOI:QO $5.. o.--. .. "WII'IIIIII‘IvIIgo: . IIIWIIIIIIIII AID o'0_?:0‘..btd I III '-r:--" WWIIOOI IIII- I I '.’.....Q. II I9°OOIIHOIO.‘6.9I'1’::.00‘j'tif1 I-o..,vI... I '°°0’H."‘...'.SOIII’ III IWISIIIIIOIIII‘ :I‘ I 'W‘OIOOII ‘, _. I IIIIII'. .I .. I (I".'3.OO.OIOQIJIII "‘!9°C._C.)ICOI'OII=.I I. 9. .O.O‘I. . I.II.-o......-.-u a I ‘IWOC'QQOI'IIOO'I I 90M“‘...“‘|I\\ 0"‘9‘ 09“} '1'- ' .... .v.'1IIIIIIoI.III”4II II oIII.IIIIIII J! I ."..,..CODICII" (IJII; . OOIIIIOIQIIIII III I,IOIIVOI.I.‘I§ 1‘I9'I12HQQOOOO..OQ§§‘ ;I'I?IIOI¢O t' V ’ I I o - a - \ - - o I I I V’I I . . I I o I J I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I L - A I I ' I I I I I Q o 1 ¢ . ‘ I . I I I I I a. I ’QIIIO.I."..;‘, II III'I\H'IH.‘IOOJI.OII..‘ .I‘S.§_W c."!.'..0‘ \ ' .1) .o I ‘1 . "‘.‘W’..O‘."III Iomcqqou‘opoj I IIQIIIIIgag‘j III 'H.‘ I.: 'III..OIIIII.I. ".""‘..‘:'4..IIII:A IOIIOCIOII .O‘IJII"‘-I.HW .‘o..~ .... . I'V'IZZZ'IIIIIIaoozalo. I '.°9.'.WIII'I II Y‘II'IJIISIIJ 9", ‘ JIOI‘ ""“‘0IIIIIIII I I’WLZMOOOl-IJIII ' ".|“CO.I I‘M '..m"'I.O'OOI ...':..,."‘.."" ‘ ' I'M‘W ..‘...‘..:OW"‘.I‘ SIIQOII‘i-P 0...! J'IIWII "'°II°.IIIIMI-- II. . 'I’II‘IIIIOI I <' .COOMIIIII'39"..‘OO.Q‘.( . W’I OIIQIIIIII . III QOOOI“'..“. 4o. 1' M"l'....tlgj.‘ 27"!COCQJ’QV' I I'I..NQII I "'|.W‘.II.‘O‘II.I . ‘OQOWCO‘QIIIIII 'I . IIIIQIII¢3III '9 II a! . ,, -IIoIIoIIIIo-... I ' VIOIIOOIOI. IIIIIIIIII‘... :IIIOIIfféI‘ D . .~.o~-I..I.... I I an. IIIoIIIoo...I II1°-IIIIIIIII< ' ""*'...““‘ ' "~"-"‘I‘ .1‘ 9"IOVIWIIIIIII .o . "";.'Q;.,.Q"IOI "'.|..:HIOO¢III II- .....0'342’. ° .3 'III'IIIII'I '.'........’.O "0.;.I‘7‘...‘.\Ol‘ '....;....J. I. 'O.§.J.I « , . . . . . I 1 . I I - - \ I .l . I a . . . - 1 , a ' I I I I I I o I ~ I . I 9 I I I1. I I . . a I . I . I I ‘I O I. J‘J.b ' _‘ v- I 'I-O‘I'I"I ‘ T‘I'IIIIIIIII I ‘°?:.._'WI ......O".‘. ' ..‘I- . . I o I \ I . I , a . . I I I I - I 4 I a I a I I I l ‘ I I Q I I I I I I : ._ I I I I I I I b I I I I k 4 I 1 I 9.. I I I‘I 5 5 I I I& - fl '.II.III..I I I IIIIIIIIIIII X .“.“J.I I-I ‘T'OOItnIa. “’8‘: a... . I IIMW.;..\ I'0WHHO‘O'“OIIIIWQI.'. -I'..':;':.|:WII ]?"Q9.000001II""'_‘.‘O£I' '., ’l'.I I oIIIIII'I; II I .1"Q..M‘OOOI I “IIQ'IMIIOI ...I I If ‘ ob‘IIg; YOCQ.‘ u. , IIQ..'I;.W. -A§'.‘I..O.J..O I .HWO.".1. " ' .Q-‘WCI‘0“..._.‘.‘...-’ I. J...“ . III........ I IHW... l “I O‘MMI.IAII I: IIII 3;. I?I*I' '-J 3. .w......, -.IIOIOIQ.I.I.1 . O'WQIOIIQ'OOOQI"! IIWIIIII;1II,I[IIDI.I§ ‘ ' I... I I'IQ‘OQH.I..W."I 'II . 'IIIIOOOIIIII I I'.'..OJII.II.“ Y”. u..Q‘I”='!9'. “ ' - "' ..4.IoI-.....I I-IoIIoI.I~o )II"?'.".::_.'.‘..VOIJ\I II‘II'IIIIIIIII 9“.le '“ . - ‘..... «I t I..W§.‘."‘.'.Q QIONO...COI“. OIIIIoeaI! II..I‘H.”~I . " .I _ . _. .:.. III...I.;.J. O..'Q‘..I.....‘ '“WJQII I ’QQQOOOIHJQI .. ‘..$‘ I. y .g.... 'I'I' IOU-m..W'|‘I ..'..‘.Q.:'...V I OOOQII:QI(I' , .QC’CICI’ " r ' ' '- I' ”<;I.' "°"\IO\ .I. .I.« ' IIIHUIIIIIIIII I "I'IIIIII "'°“"”":M""""‘IV _-o.. m ... ... ,I.......--.. .- -II‘.IIIIIIIIIII . 'IMIIIII.J; I 'Mn'""“"“""' III" ’ "~I'. . ""v‘ ‘ WWICI-OII'IVI ;I .00....IOIOQ- “IQ":WJJIIl" II [Its-III )Ij‘iI hi I,. ~”’ '4 CW...‘..OOII I -»-III (‘OIWIII \' .WQ‘..AIQ I HV'IKIQIB.I:II I'-O'Q‘JII — .0 -I'W.II; I IIIWIIII.III'0I I I‘HIIIIIII I ..W...W....‘.._ " 0... ~:.*.' "O" "'I III. I'. '.O.‘:'T..O....I- ;_ HIIOIIIIIII II ‘IQ'OOJNQOIIII ""“QOOI'“’IIJ" "- . - . l. I oIfI ' I I.. J I H‘ I I I I I I I o I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I J I I ‘ I I I I I o I l I 0 0 I 0‘0 I I 3.3!I . I I !_O’I I M ..., .. . ‘H‘:'.Woo .. I I ‘01....:.'..'.‘ ‘II‘O.:.;.OO:;.. I II “M“... II ”0....‘7 9 p; . - - '. .1... . W'IIIICQIII-I .IIIWIIo-II [W‘HO‘O'II'J‘tI IHIIIII I. 9‘."‘I’I‘ ‘ r III.III. "‘...,I- 'IQHM..." IOIIOH.O.O‘II O . OI'XCQQgfigI‘I |‘.J.HI..IJ'P‘. 39d.012 .. , .....Vr .OII..‘. 'I..I;I'.‘IIQ...I;I. .Q.."‘....:W. stIIQ'HII..."...JIIIJIIMI1 \‘ar. .OOQQI . ‘ . ,,..I...I . 'JQOOOOZICIICI ~0'-IIIIII...: I “Wat... I I II 9'0000 'Ufi‘ld’! .‘ - . . L . V . . I'. 4 . . g . ' I I I I I I g I I I g t . o I o I I I I ‘ o I I I I I I,¢ I o 3 .': I a 3 I l I fig. i I I. . I O I 0,! J ‘ ‘ ‘ ' . ~nI - -' IWV“".I"IIII-!o‘) -‘III II"' ..m..o..‘ca¢ “ IIII Izoo 2 II IIIIfI . " - ”4‘- _ ‘OOIIIIII I. IIIII'II .IOIJ Io IIIIIIIIasII 1II'.III-IIII III I 'III I AI'II.I I ’ I . ' . I' I “ -. I. . 0"'I0"...'OIIII‘I‘I‘."“.Q.‘.;I;IJ.‘,:III“..I.. .'.‘.O_-I ' W’.I.~.‘I'II .M“"I.II I... I'l‘lofI - I- “. ‘ 'I I-III II I“ 0 _ II) 3 Q ' ‘ '4 ..II' a-'.{-I.. I "‘W‘IUI‘IIII IIIIIIIII ‘I*'°'I""‘ "‘”'M""'5; _ 1909101"! I we L3 4*: a i. ‘ I i B .6 1:“ 8’. ’Y 0: '3- .d! ‘ , . K a. 161 its” inno- q autaoou bun? an? (a) "é“?! u. or! Moo .1 1:93 but 0350110 015mg . -J‘ 1:‘ --. M GI towar- at norauaoub 10 001205 on $59. ' '2'; ”v I 33.1 .91.. . . ,_ .96 331:: b01190 "-3" "3" «at ¢ ”2” " ‘ ’ ,: £3.19 Juocaou3.8a£l “01!! no . -g}‘i"1nmo ail!" .loubtunoo as 111? - AA 44' A“ AA‘ ’ ., W "cm I .3») n ,noooa .uoo 1“" | . ‘ I 53 Mr. Reagan aga§n presented his amendment and it was read in full.1 7 Presently Senator Sherman sent into an extended dis- course concerning the Bill. The Bill in its existing form did not create any new principles of law. Each State had absolute power to control trusts within its borders. However. it had been conclusively proved that the acts of individual States could not control an evil which extended its influence to all parts of the country. The object of the Bill was to allow the Federal Government to act in so far as was needed to assist the States to clamp down on trust activities. It permitted the‘United states Courts to protect the interests or the pecple of the United States. as a whole. Just as the individual States endeavored to protect their citizens against unfair excloitation. The first Section of the Bill would permit the Federal Courts to act. the same as the State Courts did in dealing with monooolistic combinations. The Second Section constituted the civil features or the Bill whereby all private parties would have the right to sue for any injuries suffered at the hands of trusts. Under the Third Sedtion criminal action might be instigated against individuals allied with such organizations. Unlike the first section it would be 138 construed strictly and would be difficult to enforce. He A __‘_. A A _ _qu— ~——-—— .__v '— 137. Cong. Record. 51 Cong. l Sess.. p. 2455-66 138. Ibid.. p. 2456. 5% concluded his remarks by stating that the preposed law was entirely within the constitutional rights of Congress l59 to promulgate. Also it would not affect farm or labor organiietions nor would it interfere with legitimate bus- 40 lDGSBc at this Juncture Senator J.J. Ingalls of Kansas sub- mitted an amendment to replace the Committee Bill. It dealt entirely With the matter of gambling in the various types or agricultural products. Its purpose was to pre- vent the selling of Options or futures in agricultural products. That business transaction was not to be declared illegal. but was to be surrounded with such regulations and special taxes as to make it quite unprofitable. For in- stance.before anyone or any organization could engage in the business of dealing in Options they must make a writ- ten application to the district collector of revenue. pay a sum of 31.660, also deliver a bond amounting to $50,000. together with two or more satisfactory securities. The dealer would be given a certificate authorising him to engage in business for a period or one year. Once each week a full report or all transactions during that period was to be made to the collector of customs.141 Senator Sherman asked that the Committee‘s Bill be read and considered. The Chair interrupted to give his A“ 4-— ‘A—A-A A_ A... _‘_ A "vvw— W v‘ 7—7 '_ 139. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. l 3383., p. 2461. 140. Ibid., p. 2457. 141. Ibido, pp. 2463“650 55 ruling on the prepositions pr nted. He stated that the substitute reported by the Committee on Finance was the original Bill. and that Senator Reagan's emendmcnt nus one of the first degree while senator Ingell's was one of the second degree.l4u SenatorG . G. Vest of Missouri turned to the original Bill with the statement that it attempumito derive its Jur- isdiction not from the character of the litigants, but from the matter under litigation. The Constitution, is said, treats the question as follows: "The judicial power of Congress shall extend to all cases. in law and equity, aris- ing under this Constitution."l4é He continued b} announc- ing that there are three distinct cls see 3 of jlrisdiction; (1) under the Constitu tion, (2) under laws made in pursuance thereof. (5) under treaties made with foreign countries. Under this interpretation a corporation, whose menbers live in a single Stets, could not be brought into court by Fed- eral officers. The bill to be effective in this reSpect 'would necessitate an amendment to the Constitution. The only alternative, he argued, would be through Federal con- trol of trusts. Senator H. L. Dan (33 of Lsssachusetts asked what would prevent the nmericsn trusts from Joining those of foreign origin and thus form world combinations. According to the legal Opinion of Senator Frank Hiscock 148. Cong. Record. 51 Cong. l Sess.. p. 2465. 1436 Ib1d0§ pp. 2463-640 144. Ibid.. pp. 2464-66. 56 of New York the First section took Jurisdiction of goods balonfiinr to an importer before they reached these shores and retained supervision after leaving his hands. The bill was supposed to be based upon the Congressional right to regulate transportation. but it did not confine itself to regulation while in trensit. If construed literally Congress would control every industry in this country. Sec- tion Three would give Federal officers inquisitorial power over all industry.145 He argued at length that since the States had full and ample power to handle the trust sit- uetion why must the Federal Government interfere in matters not concerning it?146 ‘ Senator Reagan went on to discuss his amendment and read Sections One and Two which he believed would function under the Constitutional clause giving Congress the right to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. Like Mr. Hisoock he believed the Committee's Bill was not Constit- utional. Real relief could only follow close soaperetion between the Federal and State Governments. because neither could handle the problem alone.147 The next speaker to appear was Senator W. B. Allison of Iowa. He strongly contradicted hr. Veet‘s claim that the remedy could only be found by menipulsting the tariff. While he admitted that formerly e few trusts existed duo * W a -V..*-—-— ———v —— w y— w—ww ——v~—v 145. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. 1 3688.. P0 2467. 146. Ib1de. P- 2469: 147; Ibid.,p. 2459. 57 to tariff protection yet he Was convinced that the ma- jority did not exist because of it. Such outstanding examples as the Standard Oil Company and the fihiakey Trust executed their business within the boundaries of the United States. The principle tariffs were on woolens, cotton, and leather; yet at that time no trusts existed within their ranks.l48 The bill was held over for the next session of Con;- reesf490n narch 24th Senator Sherman again brought up the Antinrust Bill and Senator David Turpie of Indiana was next to offer his suggestions. He believed the Federal Government should step forward to assist the States in their problem. Undert‘ue transportation clause of the Constitution all commodities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government when in transit from one State to another. ht all other times the States could maintain control of transit within their limits. With the two units of government scaperating Jurisdiction migut be in force continuously. ‘He thought a mistake had been made by Senator Reagan in prOposing to make his amendment a sub- stitute measure. Senator Turpie advised its incorporation into the original bill believing that together they would cover the subject exceptionally well. It would not be a bad idea, he further stated, to also include the amendment 148. Cong. Record. 51 Cong. l Sess., p. $470. 1490 Ibide‘ p. 2474. 58 of Senator George which wool; give the firesident power to regulate the tariff schedule in such a manner as to eliminate trusts built on protection. Senetor Turpie 150 wee willing to support that feature. Senator J. L. Pugh of Alabama then submitted his views. On the whole he egreed with the previously pre- sented arguments. He base. his ideas as to the Constitut- ional right of Congress to set, on the fact that it leg~ 151sted for the good of the public policy of the United States. Trusts ected against that policy "for the plain reeeon they hinder. interrupt, and impair the freedom and feirnoegfiif commerce with foreign notions and among the States" Under the commerce clause of the Constitution Congress can determine that which is detrimental to that policy or well-being of the country and may legislrte accordingly. If Congress acted on that assumntion all cases could come under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts no matter if all members or a corporation resided Within e Lingle State or were residents of a number of 163 them. Attention see then turned to Senator Reagan's amend- ment. which was read. Senator George thoughfsét was like the original bill in being unconstitutional. Senator H. M. Teller of Colorado repented the argu- ‘_ A A.— _._._ v v 150. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. l Sess,, pp. 2556-67. 151. Ibid.. p. 2688. 1520. Ibid.. p. 2558. 155. Ibid.. p. 2560. 59 went against Denetor Leagen's amendment concerning the fact thet legitimate Term organizations would be pro- hibited. In his Opinion soon efforts were perfectly In legitimate and in fact. he thought, helped to maintain prospori y. Jonator George brought out the fact, once more, that the original bill had the same weakness. eendtor Hiscock added that all labor forces meat become. within the scone of the till. illegal so well for they sought to increase wanes :hioh in turn Would necesoitete (I) hL gher commodi y prices. senetor neognn defended hi enw ndment by stetin; that it only concolned transactions with foreign nations and trofio be“ tween the States and 154 Territories. At that juncture Senatoi Sherman demanded that the bill introduced bk him receive the attention due a bill renorted by a Senate Committee, and should not be obscured and defeated through the offering of sutetit Ate m9561res. Further, he denied th t the bill tetld intelfere 1th the above mentior ed types of organizations for it was designed to concern itself only with business Organizations. Sena- tor Sherman ineieted that Senator Ingall's bill did not in any way concern the subject of trusts because it treated of gambling contracts. He felt that it had no place in the tepio of immediate concern. but should be considered as a separate bill and Shfifllfi renoive congideratijn in its 155 preper tnrn. A M 164. Cong. Record; 51 Cong. 1 3653.. p. 2561. 156. Ibido. Do 356d. 60 igein senator Hour took the floor remerkirg that the original bill provided that "the Circuit Court of the United 2 ates shall hove original jurisdiction of all suits of a civil nstnre at common law or in equity." He then proceeded to question mr. Sherman in order to elucidate the meshin: of the bill. Ris first question was: Could orivete citizens bring action in the courts 156 . assinst trusts? Hr. Sherman onswcred affirmstively. Senator Hoar then went on to quote another pas age from the bill as follows: "and the Lttorncy-Genersl end the several sttornoys ere horehy directed, in the name of the United states, to commence and prosecute all such 167 cases to final judgement and execution." Next he asked whether or not under that provision any citizen could evoke the civi%8remedy, end the prosecotors be forced to prosecute? senator Sherman st ted that his supposition was wrong, es Sections One and Two were on- tirely distinct and in no wsy Open to coordinate action. section One provided for prosecution by the Federal Lttorneys not on behalf of any individual citisen, but in the name of the United States for a crime committed against that commonwealth. On the other hand Section Two provided a means whereby citizens of this country might obtain redress for injuries suffered at the hends “A 156. Cong. Record. 61 Cong. l Jess.. p. 3565. 16?. Ibid., p. b663. 1580 11316., p. 2565. 61 of the trusts. In the hitter coco Federal Prosecutors were in no way concerned. Senator floor, however, re- mained unconvinced.16. The senator fronlhovado, hr. 3. n. Steward, believed any legislative action would be ineffectual since organiz- ed capital was too strongly intrenched financially to be touched. while other organizations. such as those formed by the people for protection from the trusts. would be crushed out of existence. Thus placing the trust in a stronger position than ever. He continued by saying that relief could come only through counter-measures of the pecple by organization. Cooperative action by the vast numbers of citizens was the real solution to the problem.1‘o The next cpeaher was senator H. w. Blair of New Hamp- ehirc. He referred to Senator Ingell'c bill concerning "Options and futures". The very fact that the law exacted a fee for the exercise of a lawless function gambling made that action legal in so much as $36 fee would become a license. Senator Ingolls pointed out Section Ten which Specifically stated that such an act did not legalize that function. However, Senator Blair insisted that despite Section Ten of the Amendment to the bill the actual out- come wo;lo be legalization.161 senator Hoar warned the Senate that hasty action usually L .__. .4. A-.. 159. Cong. Record. 51 Cong. 1. Seec., pp. 26-64. 160. Ibido. p. 25550 161. Ibido, Do 45670 62 must be repented later. He advised that giCCt care should be taken despite the outcry for immediate action on the port or the pecple. He felt that there had better be no legislation then ineifectuol action which would first give false hoses and ultimately result in violent 164 reaction when it proved worthless. It was maintained by senator Sherman that immediate action was essential as the trusts were growing in power every day. He stated that the bill Wls not perfect, but like the Interstate Commerce not of 1887 could only be improved as the weaknesses appeared after it had been placed in Operation. The States having utterly failed to meet the trust problem. he felt, that now thi6§eders Government was obliged to step into control. a 'Oncs again Senator Hoar voiced his dissgpointmen with the bill as it then appeared. He noted the several defects as: (1) It would not include a tenth of the existing trusts; (2) it did not contain the remedies Mr. Sherman believed it did; (3) it wvs not strong enough to meet the 164 problem. it this time other business intervened in thffigebete. but the bill was again considered on the some day. When it was brought up late; senator G. G. Vest of Missouri voiced his objections to the Committee bill. He thought 168. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. l 5883.. p. 3568. 1550 Ibidg. p. 4569. 164. Ibid., p. 2570. 165. Ibido. p0 2570. 63 it would not acconplish the dosil‘od rssxlt f r the fol- lowing reasons: (1) It was not within Conp‘esoioncl rights so set down by the Constitution; (2) it was against the Spirit 'nd letter of the Judiciary Act of 1789; (5) it 166 onnd and fury signifying nothin~ 5 w to Senator Vest went on to s"; o t that Sections Five, Six. and Seven of the Bill written by senator Richard Coke of Texas be read. Tho Chief Clerk proceeded to reed it. Section Five would prevent any trust from transporting any product under its control from the state of its origin Section Six sought to prevent any common carrier from accept- ing for shipment any product put under the above ban. Pen~ slties for violation were provided for it which declared un- lawful the delivery of any such prod1c% to a common carrier and authorized ounishment involving a fine end imprisonment. Section Seven authorized the President to regulate the tariff in such a way as to prevent the formation of trusts based on protection. Senator Vest pointed out that the above rc- golstions were more rediccl and would be for more effective than the Committee's Bill. moreover. it was constitutional in every respect. Even if Sections 311 and Seven were stricken out the remaining paragraph would contain adequate power to remedy the situation. The Federal Government could not be eXpected to control the .stter entirely. There would he need of soonerstion between it and the State Governments. *4... 166. Cong. 108 0rd, 51 Cong. 1 38880. p. 25700 64 For instonce if n State were to declare a cargoration unlerful than the Federal Government under the Intern stote commerce clause of toe Constitution would be ob- liged to step in and prohibit any commodity of that or- (’1 enizetion from leeving,the locality of its origin and 0. entering interstate trade. Such action-would be effec- 167 tive in eradication of the trust evil. The discussion at tnis time reverted to the original bill. Senstor Hisoock ststod that Section Tao. which per» mitted citiaens to collect damages rum trrsts, would not operate as eXpected for no citizen coald afford the pro- cess of a court right age not a powerful corporation. The damages suffered by a single individual. in most cases, would not warrant such an eXpenditure, even if the money was available. The Committee's Bill would afford no remedy even if it shoald be declared constitutional. Senator H. E. Teller of Colorado agreed with Senator Hisoock. He thought it WLS inpossible for Congress to meet the problem, but the states co ld, for they created corporations end could set down rules governing their operation. He be- lieved it advisable that the bill be referred to the Com- mittee on the Judiciary to see what they could do with it. 168 The bill was therefore held over. When the bill was again considered on March 85th, 167. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. l oese., pp. 2570-71. 168. Ibid.. pp. L571-73. 66 Senator Ingnll's amendment was next given considere- tion, not however. as a substitute\ but as an adcition to the original bill. Before any action could be taken a proviso was suggested by Senator Hour. to follow Sectinn Two. and to read: "Provided. That this act shall not apply to contracts for the delivery at any one time of articles less then $50 in value.”176This was agreed to and mr. Ingall's amendment was now agreed to in its entirety.177 The Senator from Texas Hr. Richard Coke. was next to introduce an amendment of considerable length which in- cludcd: (1) n definition of a trust similar to those in other amendments already mentioned; (2) a declaration that the formation of a trust was against the public policy of the United States and therefore was unlawful: (3) a pro- vision for a fine not less than $500 and not more than $10,000: (4) a statement that any contract made by a trust would be illegal; (5) any company declared by a state to be a trust would be prohibited the right to transport any of its products outside of the stete of origin; (6) any common carrier which accepted for transportation any commodity produced by an orgtnisatiJn declared to be a trust would be subject to certain penalties; (7) the Pre- sident was authorized to suspend the operation of a tariff regulation on any product similar to that produced by any combination declared to be a trust and to maintain that suspension until such tine as he may deem it preper to 176. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. l 8335.. p. 2613. 1770 Ibidc, p. 26130 67 revoke his order; (8) "that all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act be. and the 178 same time are hereby repealed". Senator Sherman moved that it be laid on the table for it was inconsistent with the bill as already acted upon. Senator Coke resisted this action. It was intend- ed as-a substitute and was superior to the original bill. he thought. in that it was constitutional and offered a means of cosperating with the States. He moved that the original bill with its amendments only excepting those of Senator Ingall. be striken out and his amendment be substituted. Senator Sherman again moved that it be laid on the table. A vote was taken on this last motion with 179 the following results; yeas 26. nays 16. An amendment offered by Senator J. S. Spooner of Wis- consin was then read by the Chief Clerk. It was to be inserted in Section One. line twentynsix. after the word "execution" - to read as follows: ...and whenever in any action commenced under the provisions of this act in the name_of the United States any arrangement. trust. or combination herein declared void is found by any such court to exist. the court may in add- ition to other remedies. issue its writ of in- Junction. temporary of final. running and to be served anywhere within the Jurisdiction of the 'United States. prohibiting and restraining the defendants or any thereof. or their or any of their servants. agents. or attorneys. from pro~ ceeding further in the business of said arrange- ment. trust. or combination. except to wind up its affairs; and in case of any disobedience of any such writ of injunction to other preper process. mandatory or otherwise. issued in any such cause. it shall be lawful for said court to issue 178. Cong. Recore. 61 Cong. l 8953.. pp. 2613-14. 1796 Ibide, pp. 2614'150 68 write of attachment. running and to be served anywhere within the United States. against the defendants or any thereof. and against their or any of their agents. attorneys. or servants of whatever name or office. dis- obeying said injunction or other process; and the court may. if it shall think fit. in addition to fine and imprisonment for con- tempt. make an order directing any such de- fendants disobeying such writ of injunction or other process to pay such sum of money. not exceeding $1.000. for every day after a date to be named in such order that such defendant or de- fendants or their or any of their agents. attor- neys. or servants as afforesaid shall refuse or neglect to obey such injunction or other pro- cess; and such money shall be paid into court and may be paid in whole or in part to the party or parties upon whose complaint said action was instituted. or into the Treasury of the United States. as the court shall direct. And any action brought by the United States under the pro~ visions of this act the attorney-General may bring the action in any district in which any- one of the parties defendant resides or transects business. and any other parties. corporate or otherwise. may. regardless of residence or loca- tion of business. be brought into court in said action. in the manner provided by section 758 of the Revised Statutes. and the court shall thereupon have jurisdiction of the defendant or defendants so brought in. as fully to all intents and purpgses as if they had appeared in said action. Senator Spooner than stated that his amendment had three advantages. namely: (1) The Federal Court would have juris- diction cver cases irrespective of where the interested parties lived or transacted business; (2) it would provide for a vigorous and drastic use of the writ of injunction any- where in the United States; (3) it would be possible to reach 181 domestic trust'. After some discussion the amendment was 100. Cong. Record. 51 Cong. 1 Sesc.. p. 2640. 1610 Ibide. pp. 2640-41. 69 18o agreed to. it this point Senator Ingalls offered an amendment to the amendment as agreed to. In line nine. Section Seven. after word "owner" insert. "or producer. or the lawful a- gent of such owner or producer." Also he suggested the following words to be inserted after the word "value". in the proviso submitted by Senator Hoar. "nor to bend fide contracts for the actual delivery of the preperty contracted 183 for". Both suggestions were agreed to. The following proviso was suggested by Senator N. Y. Aldrich of Rhode Island. and was to be added to Section One of the original bill. As no argument resulted it was speedily agreed to: 8 Provided further. That this act shall not be construe- to apply to or to declare unlawful combinations or associations made with a view or which tend. by means other than by a reduction of the wages of labor. to les- sen the cost of production or reduce the price of any of the necessaries of life. nor to the combinations or associations made with a view or which tend to increase the earning§4of persons engaged in any useful employment.’ Next Senator h. C. Butler of South Carolina submitted the following amendment to be added after the word"products“. in line four of Section Eight. "and alio stocks and bonds". 85, This amendment was likewise agreed to. Minor amendments came thick and fast. some were agreed to while others were not. Not any of them changed the mean~ WV 7 W 188. Cong. Record. 51 Cong. l Sess.. up. £653. 1830 Ibide. D. 26540 1843 Ibiée. PP. 3654-550 186. Ibid.. p. 2655. ing or imoort or the bill. In fact amending reached such e ridicnlous stage that it uppeered to be an rttempt to sub- merge the bill. Senator n. P. Gormnn of msrylnnd stetcd the addition of such amendments would make the hill "Worse then a sham and e delusion". and further moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary with an order 186 to report it within twenty days. By this time Senator Shermun we; thoroughly disgusted. end said no matter how long it tOok or how difficult the reed. he was going to see that the bill received fair treatment. Further. he reiterated his former stetement that Senator Ingsll's amendment was beside the point and should be considered in l8? a separate bill. The Senator from Iown. hr. J. F. Wilson. suggested that another wroviso be added to Section One. to read as follows: Nor to any arrangements. agreements. ess- ocistions. or combinations. among persons ;or the enforcement and executim of t..;e lens of any State enacted in pursuance of its nolice powers; nor shall this not be held to Control or elridge such powers of the States.188 189 It was agreed to. At that Juncture Senator J. R. Henley of Connecticut moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Senator S. M. Cullom of Illinois believed that such a move would strangle the bill. and suggested it be referred to the Committee on Finance again. He went on to 186. Cong. Record. El Cong. l 8935.. p. 2656. 1870 Iblde. p. 26550 188. Ibldl. p. 36580 1890 Iblde. p/ Z6610 71 state that every con eivable subject had been dragged in and attached to the trust hill. On the other hand Benet r Sherman could see no reason for deleying a show down by returning it to the Committee on Finance. fienator Hawley's motion was defeated by a vote of 24 yeas against 29 nays.190 again Senator Vest submitted an amendment to change Section tine, line five, by striking out the word "one" ~nd insert ng "ten". It too was accepted.191 The 8 note then adjurned.19d The bill came up once more, on March 27th, with a considerhtion of the many changes which had no effect on the basic meaning or the bill. The argument ceased when Senator E. C. Waltham of Mississippi moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary to be reported within twenty days. Obviously it was getting nowhere in the Senate acting as a Committee of the Thole, This time the vote was yeas 31, nays 23.193 It was April and when Senator G. F. Edmunds or Ver- mont reported the bill from the Committee on the Judiciary. It was recommended that all be stricken out of the original bill and after the enacting clause the following be sub- stituted instead, namely: 1.90. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. 1 8688., p. 2661. 191. Ibid., p. 2661. 192. Ibid., p. 2662. 193. Ibid.. p. 2729. 72 Sec. 1. Every contract. combination in the form of a trust or otherwise. or conspiracy in restraint of trade of commerce among the several States orewith foreign nations is hereby declared to be illegal. Every per- son who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conSpiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. and, on conviction thereof shall be punished b; fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding one deer. or by both said punishments, in the discreation of the court. Sec. 3. Every person who shall monOpolise, or attempt to monOpolise or combine or con- spire with any other percon or persons to mono- polize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. and, on conviction thereof. shall be punished by fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said puna ishments, in the discreation or the court. Sec. 5. Every contract. combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the Dis- trict of Columbia. or in restraint of trade or commerce betwe n any such territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia. or with foreign nations. or between the District of Columbia and any State or states or foreign nations is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall. be deemed guilty or a misdemeanor. and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished b fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year. or by both said punish- ments, in the discreation of the court. Soc. 4. The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with Juris- diction to prevent and restrain in violations of the act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States in their reapective districts. under the direction of the Attorney-General. to institute proceedings. in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way or petition set- ting forth the case and praying that such viola- tion shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. . ;3 . r'“‘ --' -eo;sn5.- .y.' '1': 8‘h-13L’3 (-1 ’7 . "396 J. ‘.' .1 . ' . r 088 «n ".u o ., °'° . . f ' 1’5? xrfiul i i u h .(L. . Uni: ,‘luuf '. ' ’- .: 0M1"- (. '.' $2111.70“ -r- l . 301! Justin-pr 1' up: '1. .pdnnmnsinnc birr g 5‘ {LWUT’ 4t .'. ;- . . *3 - . . «we ':r -..3 ', .5, .3 - "0.1“.” M (.2 hp. t 3 m "OT-MC L - JOB‘IJ -~ .tniiien aaaeuoi J33“ 'b.- .J 9100 J ’I' 1"- 17‘4. 1 " '. / 113 Ed D0“? int." ": .- '. . alE. . ' 3W81'xqwl, .3. con, ' «aha hisa'i:-; ;: 10 ,.-. .ffiuexz a“: 1- ei-:*-1 , ai.gfii3ntivmco .JJJiJuU- . . 19311;?” t w ,':.--W'19..'1u '1 - 5) J'i XLYJIO'.‘ 'h' ' hut. w IL ‘.U. “301.”; 5' ”v ‘19 fits‘fl I0 5 *i‘sm:6 . .13fl1’;d:bas xioaizzal "” - - ' 1m? 10' “i 'M '.'ie' ant-roam on: 'c as 3,... » d-..,-:o .monoa mu. .;-!fi :9 0846: van sne:uio .ht‘l" ”9181909) ‘.'} an Mun” none was 2.531- refinance ‘10 noise 1.3.1. c j .hée.1osoeloeem a in w . . - d ban-arena ed liens , - 1 tWI'EQOK {d 10 UV), «em Nee 330:: w m .-: . i 1‘ .3196!) 21d: 30 Ba}: . on: in evince Jluaarc isle . . -311Qt diiw 'onseevui yd é Yoi-Ofloiiaiorl a; ‘.Ues'rdaa‘i . lerevea ed: 1: i-"J an: a- 11013 ni seas: hsJin- ’d; .19 ”13007.3. .-.‘ ""3. w , .eaeiseeocxc wanna-o. i . olnoits div 8: .c .Iittcci ‘3... ad 3109!? 1'. ‘JJC'J {d 8" calciv done 3sd' finivsrg tr 03031610010 ssl'nuddo We 73 lhen parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and, pending such pet- ition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as snail be deemed just in the premises. Sec. 5. finenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceedings under section 4 of this act may be pending that the ends of Justice require that other parties should be brought before the court. the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in Which the court is held or not; and subpoinas to that and be served to any district by the marshall thereof. Sec. 6. Any property owned under any con- tract or by any combination or pursuant to any comSpiracy (and being the subject txereof) men- tioned in section 1 of this act, and being in the course of tranSportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the Uniteu States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law. Sec. 7. any person injured in his business or prOperty by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared b0 be un- lawful by this act may sue therefore in any air- cuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, with- out respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of the suit, including a reasonable attorneyfs fee. Sec. 8. That the word "person" or persons" wherever‘used in this act shall be deemed to in- clude corporations and associations existing under or authorized b: the laws of the either the United States, the laws of an" of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country. Sen tor Edmunds askeigzhat the above bill be ccnfiidered as soon as possible. On April 8th Senator Hoar brought up the Judiciary Bill for consideration. It was reed in full. Senator Sherman 194. Cong. Record, bl Cong. l Sess., p. 2901. 74 arose to remark that he was perfectly willing to vote for that bill.195 According to Senator George that bill did not include all manner of trusts and would prove a disap- pointment to the pecple. At that stage of the discussion.i Senator G. F. Edmunds of Vermont, 8 member of the Committee of the Judiciary, interrupted to state that in his opinion the bill should be of a general n tore clearly within the Constitution. Its progress in the courts should then be closely watched and the weak points corrected as they appeared. It was an utter impossibility to construct a port ct bill in the initial att mpt. Such an endeavor would only lead to so much confusion that the bill would be worth- less.196 Amendments were offered by Senators George and Reagan. However, Senator J. T. Bergen of nlabama and Senator H. C. Butler of South Carolina believed the bill should be passed as it then stood. The amendments were consequently rejected.197 A vote was ordered on the bill and it has passed by yeae, 53 against neys, 1. At the same time the title Was amended to read: "a bill to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monogolies."198 On April 11th the Senate Trust Bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.199 Mr. Culberson of Texas reported on April 25th the Bill to the House from the above 195. Cong. Record, 61 Cong. 1 Sess., p. 5146. 196. Ibidc. pp. 31¢?‘48. 197. Ibid., p. 5151. 198. Ibido. P0 5153. 199. Ibldo, p. 3626. 75 200 Committee and it was placed on the House Calendar. It was brought Up for consider tion in the House on May let. The bill was read in full. Lt once criticisms were heard from various members of the House who desired to append to it numerous amendments. It looked very much as though the confusion in the Senate was to be repeated in the House. Mr. R. P. Bland offiissouri remarked that the bill was "not worth a cepper in its present 3 ape with- out amendments and we want an opportunity to make something 201 or it". To go into the various arguments pursued in the House would be to repeat the arguments as presented in the S.nete. The Constitutionality of the bill, the tariff eSpects of it, and the inadequacy of the measure all receivedtmixfighconsid- oration. The final effect produced was an Opinion that the bill, although not perfect. was at least a beginning in the right direction, and that it shuuld be left for the courts to determine its weak points. which it was heped would be corrected as they appearegé The only amendment adapted was that of’Mro R. P: Blend.“ which was to be added to Section Eight and read as follows: Every contract or agreement entered into for the purpose of preventing competition in the sale or purchase of any commodity trans- ported from one State or Territory to be sold in another. or so contracted to be sold. or for the transportatian or persons or preperty f¥0m A. '—v fir. 200. Cong. Record, 51 Cong. 1 Sess.. p. 3857. 20].. Ibid. . pp 0 4088-890 202. Ibido, p. 41040 76 one State or Territory into another. shall be deemed unlawful within the meaning of this act: Provided, That the contracts here enumerated shall not So construed to exclude any other con- tracg 8r agreement declared unlawful in this 50$. 0 The main object of this amendment was the elimination of the Beef Trust.204The bill as amended was passed by the Houseodo5 The House then returned the bill to the Senate on May and. where SenetOr Vest moved that the bill with the House Amendment be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. His wishes were carried out.206 The bill was under the consideration of that Committee until May lath. when Senator Hoar reported it out by re- commending that the Senate concur with the House Amendment and that a conference he requested. Moreover. he then pre- sented an amendment to the House Amendment. It was read by the Chief Clerk to the Senate as phrased: "In line one after the word 'preventing' strike out all down to and in- oluding the word 'prevent‘. as follows; Competition in the sale or purchase of any commodity transported from one State or Territory to be sold in another. or so contracted to be sold, or to prevent." It was recommended that the Proviso be eliminated. On the insistent demand of Senator Coke for more time to consider the Houseonmendment the bill was laid (a over and tie amendment printed. ' ‘7'? w r‘ v —v 205. Cong. Record. 61 Cone. 1 8983.. p. 4099. 204. Ibidcg Fe ‘0990 205. Ib1a.. p. 4104. 2060 Ibidc. pp. 4133-240 2070 Ibidc. p. ‘5600 77 Senator Hoar called up the bill. once more. on May 13th and moved that it he recommitted to the Com- . 208 mittee on the Judiciary. The motion was agreed to. On May 17th the trust bill with its amendments was again laid before the House with the notification that the Senate had concurred in the amendment of the House with amendments and desired a conference. Hr. E. B. Taylor moved that the House refuse to concur with the Senate amendmegt: and that it agree to a conference. His ‘0 motion passed. The Speaker of the House. on May 21, appointed Mr. E. B. Taylor of Ohio. hr. J. W. Stewart of Vermontzigd Mr. R. P. Blend of Missouri to confer on the bill. The House Conference Committee submitted its report June 11th. It read as follows: The committee or conference on the dis- agreeing votes of the two Houses on the amend- ment of the House of Representatives to the bill of the Senrte S. 1. ...having met. after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House of Representatives recede from its desagreement to the amendments of the Senate and agree to the same modifted to read as follows, in .lieu of the whole House amendment: Soc. 2. Every contract or agreement on- tered into for the purpose of preventing com- petition in the transportation of persons or prOperty from one State or Territory into another so that the rates of such transportation may be raised above the meaning of this act, and noth- in. in this act shall be deemed or held to impair the powers of the several States in res- pect of any of the matters in this act mentioned. —._— 208. Cong. Record 61 Cong. l Sess.. pp. 2668-66. 209. Ibldo. p. ‘8570 210. Ibid., p. 4857. “A— ‘.‘ A o 30 .610; 53:50 , -010" W13 new. 808 .03 bu‘lg. un' . new ataemni~;n as: Jane neiesiittdou means}: on; to 1332: ed .3 .121 .901. and 631! 149300 rein .eonezstnou a a -le tastiest} EC: 30:23:03 Livia ~noo finicnevAm; to eeouqn« ,UJ se-emueq fro autmnmm': at: 1- tendons can: urcrjwser 1c a; ; .w, 04w.uiwnoqenn: don. e v.1: #1,“ MO .398 8111.? to 33111.net ‘z' C O I O O O I U . ."eu 9“- O :. ,‘OVP: J \ I did ' -10 .e f t'!.‘7 '- (‘.’: :1 N.‘ 7 -‘T L3.) . e! “an 'to beeteeb ed lie;- new era? a? an: '80! a: Wadi. .I‘-°rot‘~..+’ acid '1‘; 2-. .beaoiznem 183 ski? 3; 31:3 an “36-80963 .nj: .335» l O‘.u~' 13 $2.17)}. .‘anrd 08m .VL3§‘ 0‘] .e“I'.;I .908 .?-‘ng.. o .. '60.!“1 can 78 And the Senate agreed to same. E. B. Taylor. J. W. Stewart. granaaers on the part of the House. George F. Edmunds, _ George F. Hoar, all lanagors on the hart of the Son to. It was at this stage that Mr. Bland made known his de- sire to submit a minority report and time for further con- ference. The Speaker replied that a minority report could not be submitted, and the Question before the House was the adoption of the Conference Report. he the Report was deem- on ensued covering substan- ‘.‘. ed of great importance a disease tially the s'me ground as before and no definite conclusions 212 resulted that day. On June 12th the matter was again presented to the House by the Speaker. A vote was taken with the following results; yeas 85, hays 54. Mr. Stewart moved that the House recede from its original amendment, and further another conference be held, and the House Conferees be instructed t; that ef- 213 214 feet. Both motions were agreed to. Two days later the Speaker of the House reappointed the three men who formerly acted as House Conferees. How- ever. hr. Bland requested that he be relieved from the ap- 215 pointment and Mr. D. B. Qulbermn of Texas took .‘118 place. The Vice-President laid before the Senate. on June 16th. the statement of the House of Representatives. Sen- 211. Cong. Record, El Cong. l Sess., p. 5950. 3130 Ibide. pp. 5950-610 213. Iblde. De 59810 314. Ibide. De 5583c 2150 Iblde. De 6099. 79 ator Edmunds then moved that the Be 216 thcr conference. The motion Wu '.‘.‘S ete agree to a fur- passed, and Senators DJ Edmunds. Hoarand Vest were again appointed as Senate Con- 21? feroes. On June 18th Senator Edmunds submitted a report from the Committee of Conference which recommended that both Houses rocede from their reapective amendments and the 218 report was concurreu in. A similar report was submitted to the House on June - 219 20th by Mr. Stewaggo and was likewise agreed to by a vote of 242 to O. The Bill was signed by the Speaker of the House on June 23rd and the next day the Vice-President signed 222 it on behalf of the Senate. On July and. Mr. 0. L. Prudcn, a secretary to the President. announced that the bill had been approved by and signegzgy the President of the United States, on June 26 . 189° C 216. Gong. Record. 51 Cong. l 8888.. p. 6983. 217. Ibido. p0 6117. 318. Ibid., p. 5108. 219. Ibido. p. 5315. 2200 Ibido. p. 6314. 321. Ibido. P0 6410. 222. Ibido. P0 6435. 225. Ibid., p. 6922. 80 V The pasaage of tJe Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the enactment of the eherm n Anti-Trust Act three years lat- er, marked the departure by't 6 Federal government from the long-lived policy of laissez-faire, end the inception of a program for a degree of public control over our economic ac- tivities. By the late decades of the nineteenth century ab- uses and maladjustments resulting from our rapidly develop- ing industrialism were appearing. These situations in Ameri- can society in time awakened the public conscience to the fact that all was not well with our economic and social struc- ture. while a large part of the American public might have agreed in 1869 with the emerican economist. Edward Atkinson, that "the natural law of free exchange and competition e- volves hirh wages low prices, large products‘ a lessened mar- gin of profit on each unit of production". and even approved of it as "the law of progress"; yet between the years of 1869 and 1890 the rapidly changing systems of production and trans- portation had brought a considerable part of the public to the realization, that the previously proclaimed advantages un- der a laissez—faire policy were not bein* gained b, the gen- eral public but rather by the privileged fee. The passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 was the culmination of a series of steps taken by various gov- ernmental units in the United States for regulating and con- 81 trolling the develOpment of business combinations that proved by experience to be harmful in purpose and effect to the best tnterests of the public. The state govern- ments found limitations on the effectiveness of their re- gulatory measures over combinations. It soon became ap- parent that effective control over unfair monOpolistic trusts could come only through the cOOperation of both national and state governments. It was with the passage of the Sherman Act that Congress took a step in the dir- ection of that objective. In this study of the legislative history of the Sher- man anti-Trust Act it is possible to draw a few deductions or conclusions which may add to a better underst nding of this landmark of emerican trust legislation. The points to be made are herewith presented in question form and are as follows: ' (1) Did the Sherman Bill result from some serious sit- uation or development in combination practices, or was it the cumulative effect of unsatisfactory eXperiences in meeting the problems growing out or the Combination move- meat? It has been noted that after the Civil War the factors conducive to large scale business enterprise were present under the most favorable circumstances. Rivalry between competitive business units soon encouraged unfair methods with one another. Ruinous competition resulting in lessen- 83 ed profits or even bankruptcy necessarily led these competi- tive units to form combinations. Either because of the in- stability of the type of combine evolved, or because of le- gal snags encountered, eXperience taught business enterprise the means of designing the type of organization most conven~ ient and profitable for its purposes. In evolving and ap- plying these several means of business combinations the general public as well as the would-be competitor found prac- tices or effects produced not wholly desirable. The inter- state business of these large organizations soon made state legislation wholly inadequate in meeting the evil practices I and dire consequences produced by them. As in the case of transportation control the Federal government realized in time the need of its departure from its traditional position. It may be concluded that no significant or alarming situation arose in 1890 to work for the Sherman Bill, but rather an experience of some years relative to trusts had the cumu- lative effect of overcoming a characteristic inertia regard- .ing such matters in Congress which public sentiment would no longer harbor. Both politicians and industrialists were aware of this sentiment by 1890. (2) How far was the legislation a direct result of the failure of common law practice and state anti-trust statutes in meeting the problem? ‘ The very character of our governmental organization, a federation. shortly determined the incapacity of the 83 individual state government in meeting the problem. ‘Unfair practices and methods of a combination resorted to outside the boundaries of the state of its incorporation was bound to raise the same questions which arose regarding the scope of state regulation over railways after the Supreme Court decision in the Wabash R. H. vs. Illinois. 1886.~ Thile there was a considerable opposition to the continued centralization of powers into the sands of the Federal Government. yet even this Opposition agreed that the state governments were un~ equal to the task of controlling the combination movement either through common law practice or by statutory measures. Senator J. K. Jones of Arkansas one of the most outspoken Opponents of centralization was willing to yield to it on this issue. Senator John Sherman of Ohio by 1888 felt the absolute neceSSity of a nati nal act if the problem was to be met at all. The limitations of common law rulings were obvious. Such rulings could only be applied if a disagreement occured among the members of a trust and the case see voluntarily brought into court for settlement. (3) How large a part did public opinion play in creating a sentiment in Congress favorable for the consideration of such legislation? It is always difficult, as well as exceedinaly dangerous, in attempting to fathom the depth of puhlic opinion in Con- gress on a given issue. In 1890 there were many important 84 national issues before Congress to be shaped into leg- islative measures. [The silver. tariff and trust issues were the matters of vital concern. There surely was some pportunity for "log-rolling" among senators and represen- tatives. however, there had appeared and continued to appear numerous bitter indictments against combinations in. current periodicals of the latter part of the nineteenth century. How far this Opinion affected the thinking of Congress it is hard to conclude. The most direct and emphatic means of public wish on this subject came in the way of num- erous petitions to Congress. There can be little doubt in believing, that these memorials had the stimulating effect of pressing Congress to action which resulted in the presenta- tion er thirty-eight hills within a relatively short period of time. (4) What diaposition did political parties and political leaders take for or against the initiation and support of a national anti-trust law by 1890? Within the two major parties, Republican and Democratic, no definite alignment either for or against a trust regulation program is discernable in thelnaterials studied in the writing of this thesis. A safe inference to draw of a partisan's vieWpoint on this subject is that it was probably determined by the sectional attitudes of his locality or by his economic interests. It is in the third party movements of this period of American history that the complete program for trust re- gulation is more definitely expressed. The third parties such as the Greenback party, Union Labor party Anti-Monopoly 85 party, and Prohibition party were earliest in inserting trust regulation planks into their platforms, while the Democratic party introduced e moderate plank into the platform of 1884, yet by 1888 it had decided on s more pronounced stetemont of it. The Republican party Wrs particularly evasive of the issue until the Election of 1883. when it likewise mildly proclsimed for a program of re- gulation. The act res hastily passed at a time of pepnler discontent. It is evident frgm the remark of Orville Flatt of Connecticut that it was not so much to limit trusts L8 to tiCe the Republic ns over the next election. It is nothing short of a surprise in learning of the moderate exgreseions of the chief political leaders of both major parties both in and out of congress during the pend- in: Sherman Bill. In spite of the fact that a large num- ber of.them still wore the garments of leissez-fuire prin- ciples, nevertheless, little of outspoken objection to the Sherman Bill was voiced by a major political leader of either party. To many it is possible that at that moment "silence was golden". "Czar" Thomas B. heed, Sneaker of the House. was an exception. While trust legislation was before Con- grass he made the following remark: "As for the great new chimera. trust. with tongue of lembont flame end eye of forked figz, serpent-headed end griffin-clawed, why he al- armed?" a In learning of a remark pnrnortinq that a dozen men could fix prices for sixty million pecple. Reed exclaim- 2;4. W. A. Robinson, "Theses B. Reed" , p. 173. 86 ed: "They can never do it. There is no power on earth that can raise the price of any necessity of life above a Just price and keep it there. here than that, if the price is raised and maintained for even a short while, it means ruin for the combination and still lower prices for consumers. Compared withvone of your lens of Congress, it is e Leviathan to a claw.“d5 Reed had no enthusiasm for regulatory action of the government. By 1888 with major and minor parties supporting anti- trust legislative prognmas it is only natural to assume that a measure could not be drafted which would meet with the complete approval of all parties or all political leaders. (5) What characterized the attitude of the Senate and the House toward the prOposed le'islation? Was it favorable, indiffemn t, or unfavorable? Both the House and Senate were most favorably inclined toward the passage of anti-trust legislation between the Years of 1888-1890. The only Ci fficzlty encountered in either chamber was the intricacies of the question itself. The serious aim of both groups of legislators in their de- sire to construct a fool-proof bill is most commendable. It was not long before they realized their objective as im- possible. Becsuse of the subtleties brought out in the de- 225. W. A. Robinson, "Thomas B. Reed" pp. 172-73. 87 betas and the confusion resulting therefrom. it appeared to many in Congress that the bill would be destroyed by its keenest advocates. Its salvation came when it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary which teak the original bill With its many confusing amendments and constructed a measwre that was acceptable but far from being adequate. The willingness of the House of Representatives to a- wait the introduction of the Senate Bill (shcrman Bill). although thirty-four similar bills had been introduced in the House and were withheld by Committees' action, speaks highly of the OOOperation of the two chambers on this pro- blem. Likewise,it is significant to take notice of the con- siderate attention given to the Senate Bill in the House and its acceptance after a minimum of debate and amendment. (6) In the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were there any indications that it was a partisan measure? .An analysis of the notes in the Senate clearly indicates that it was non-partisan in character. In fact there was only one disagreeing‘vote cast by those present. namely; Senator Rufus Blodgett of New Jersey. a Democrat. There may have been some significance in his negative vote in that he was engaged in railroads “1C bankina. Prominent Democratic Senators, who voted fer the measure and who had a large part in deciding the nature of the bill, were Richard Coke of Texas. J. H. neegan of Texas, David Turpie of Indiana. and G. G. Vest of Missouri. There were equally prominent Re- 88 publicen Senators who followed the same course, namely: ‘.‘J. B. Allison of :Iowe, J. J. Ingells of Kansas. G. F. Hoar of Massachusetts, 0. H. rlstt of Connecticut, 3. u. ‘ Cullom of Illinois, and the sponsor oi the till, John Sher- man of Ohio. Since the Sherman Act to all purposes was constructed in the Senate there is little need to term to the House vote for an enlysis of its ch raster. (7) As the preposed bill passed tsrou n Congress what were the chief o jections to it in the Sen te: In the House? What were the feeture" of the Amendments? That characterised the debates? Since the bill had its introduction in the Senate it therefore met its chief objections and criticisms there. The criticisms and objections were numerous but can be grenped around the several questions herewith presented, namely: (a) Coald Congress const tutionelly propose and pass legislation relative to combinations? (b) Was the measure to cover all combinations inclusing those of fur- mer's and labor org nizetiens? To meet this giery Sher.en sent a proviso to the Committee on Judiciary excluding them from the scone of the measure, but it was not included in the final draft of the act besemse most Senators felt it unnecessary. (c) Woule sxch a measure include organisations formed ouzgidg of this ceuntry but operating within its boundaries? (d) Would not the criminal feature of the bill compel the court to favor the stevscd as is the custom 88 publican Senators who followed the same course, namely: w. B. Allison of :Iowa, J. J. Ingalls of Kansas. G. F. Hoar of Massaehusetts, O. H. Flatt of Connecticut, 3. d. Cullom of Illinois, and the sponsor of the bill. John Sher- man of Ohio. Since the Sherman Act to all purposes was constructed in the Senate there is little need to turn to the House vote for an snlysis of its character. (7) As the proposed bill passed turonrn Congress what were the chief o jections to it in the Senate: In the House? Whet were the features of the amendments? What characterised the debates? Since the bill had its introduction in the Senate it therefore met its chief objections and cr ticisml there. The criticisms and objections were numerous but can be grunped arcand the several questions herewith presented, namely: (a) Could Congress constitutionally prOpose rnd pass legislation relative to combinations? (b) Was the measure to cover all combinations including those of fur- mer's and labor org nizations? To meet this query Sherman sent a proviso to the Committee on Judiciary excluding them from the scape of the measure. but it was not included in the final draft of the act because most Senators felt it unnecessary. (0) Would such a measure include organisations formed outgidg of this ceuntry but Operating within its boundaries? (d) Would not the criminal feature of the bill compel the court to favor the accused as is the custom 89 in crihinsl let? On t"s other hand, 3 civil law can be either liberally or strictly interpreted according to the discretion of the court and nature of the case bring con- sidered. In the House similar objections and criticisms were raised, but this chamber realizing that the bill would be indefinitely delayed sensed the debate to be limited. The ‘House. however, remained persistent in its demand for the Blend amendment until it realised the Senate's unwillingness to yield to it. host amendments were forthcoming from the Senate. While the amendments were numerous they were largely minor in importance. Many of them simply called for a change in word or phrase with the purpose of clarifying possible misinterpretation of its reel intent. However, Senators Reagan, Ingalls ans Coke offered substitute hills which were much debated, but which did not replace the original bill introduced by Senator Sherman. The debate at times waxed werm and at times quite bitter. It indicated the impossible task before Congress in drafting e law that would meet with common favor. Congress hed little or no experience with this type of legislation. (8) Werethe legislators aware of the weaknesses of the bill as it was considered? Did they anticipate the need of court construction in order to meke the bill really effec" tive? Did they fully realize that the bill would call for fut- 90 are revision? host of the Senators who had a large part in framing the measure were aware of its deficiencies. Senators John Sherman and G.-F.'Edmunds made pertinent statements that they consid- ered the bill Var from perfection in its construction. It was generally agreed that there were many weaknesses and that without a doubt many more would appear after the measure be- came effective, but they all were of the Opinion that it was the best bill that could be drawn up under the circumstances. They agreed it would be the duty of the courts to interpret the provisions of the Act; it would be the responsibility of the federal law officers for its enforcementgand it would be the future obligation of Congress to rectify the weaknesses of the measure as time revealed them. (9) Who was the author of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? In a number of important instances in our history the reel author of inportant legislation or public policy has not been revealed. so that the act or policy masquerades under the name of another. fould it not be nearer to the truth in calling the Monroe Doctrine the policy largely mould- ed by John Quincy Adams? Or would it not be giving credit where credit is due if we called the recently abrogated (1934) Platt Amendment the Root Amendment? Or to designate the ton Act? Pendleton Civil Service Act or 1885 the Ea.“ Likewise the Sherman anti-Trust not was not the brain- child of John Sherman alone. After a careful study of the 91 legislative history of this act it is possible to discern several men who had a large part in its making. John Sher- man after whom the bill was nened was not its author, nor can it be called the work of Senator Hoar of Massachusetts who liked to claim its authorship. Its real author was the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Of its membership Senator G. F. Edmunds of Vermont, its chairman, wrote most of the act. His contribution is to be found in Sections 1. c, 3, 5, and 6. Senator J. Z. George of Hississippi wrote section 4, while Section 7 was the work of Senator G. F. Hoar of Massachusetts. To Senator J. J. Ingalls must be given the credit for Section 8. While the conclusions of this essay must terminate with the formal signatures of the reefectivo presidinf officers of Senate and House, and that of the “resident of the United States, yet it may not be stretching too far ahead in stating that the Presidents from Benjamin Harrison to William Echinley were strangely inattentive to the presence of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. In reading the Messages of these Presidents to Congress covering a period of eleven years. 1890-1901, one will note that Harrison did not make a single reference to this law; Cleveland did not mention it until he sent his final message to Congress in December, 1896; while McKinley in office durins a period which coincided with the enormous business deveLOpment Was passive in his attitude throughout the greater part of his administration. It was not until the 92 states proved their inability to regulate the trust pro- 'blem that thinley in his messages to Congress in Decem- ber of 1899 and 1900 advocated an extension of thzzgro- visions of the Sherman let in order to meet them. 226. J. D. Richardson (Editor). "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents”. Vol. Ll. PENDIX A Petition: and nuptials Pruantod to Congress .ammm .n ..u«nH . .«oou .n ..c«pu . 5.3 .q :83 a .38 8 6.88m :38 . .33 .n :38. m .38 on .988: :38 . HNPD" hog-50 one :03 $368 as .0: .3331 magnum .3 0003880 .632 «5:..on 096m non-SS .m .M 002 .3 :93: v cannon .023qu 0305.8 no nous-loo 5550 03:53:: 0.33 qua-duh .m .m 08... .0 noun: 5 . as 3650 negate->3 333334 no 8338 8.33 no.3.» 3%. 35% fires: .2 .a 83 .n human; m «gonad... , 03 .on 0.33 no and ooh-93 353.: ~30 aura 0933.0. .5530 .3 .h mg." .3 5.35an a Waggon can: } 88.5 3 cop—8.35m suds «$33444 .33.». .anmo .n ..quH .5 .noao .a ..c«nH .o b§0d .n ..aoom A .mdoo an..dpooem ..m:oo on b 0.3qu «.34 no 25338 2333 hansoo aofiaaaano> .bbon .oz .093.» 3nd,.» canon awdflH nausea honuuna an .oz .oouagaad chad-Ag .5. 2% oama .oa oaah Donna; no 009358 26.6 dough 3233 3959 .n 003 :3 05h c 35.33 can «and: 255m .3 833.8 85:1 3:3 832 anon .m 83 J in? a c2885 93% 1 93:3 Nagvoonouokm 2:5 mag ugh .«woa .n ..u«nH .mm§ .q ..u«nu . .50“ .n ..c«a~ .nno .a ..anom « .wuoo an .unooom ..mnoo .omma .q ..c«p~ . .ooma .n ..u«aH . .«nma .a ..u«pH .n .nfima .g ..uann .m .nnmu .n ..anom a .mnoo on .cnooom..wuoo .H O. . ‘00‘500 5335. on» no 033550 Sig 030m 2595 .m .m .9 08H .n 53.3.— mfio: can {on no 83380 338.3» 8:8 3.0 .9 .o 83 .8 Page: a .23 328 no .3358 «Sing .33 83 .n .o coma .8 banana .nuo: on. .haa no gonads-co aqaumuyp canon "cocoa 95 .m coma .oa anuaanu ounce: can a»: no 033.8 328M 233 3.939... .4 .h 33.. .0 593.30.. p.38: 2:. a?» 8 8:138 .33 83m 33.3: .n .n 83 .0 Eugen « adage on» no oduq gunman genus» aaaam..m .m coon .oa huusaun Sufism—aux «a 833:8 .83 .36: 833 .m .m 83 .3 ESE-n magnauouuaaa: no oouaqaaoo canon» oaaam‘ anagucm..n..n game .m» hauaayn a ooh-«om 2!: 2.3: gag 33 §H§ Hanna WE. P2: EEG. EHO! can a 5.8251... bk 55H. moi. limo»; H Hung mu. Paco H. r. Eon-on mon: mall: «and lo. «3 93:00. on annual g 5’»: m .365 g. 500 m. w. 355 in. ES. 0093 0053:. on 3333 apron. g a 550 u. Paco m. P. Eco man: S3 0053 dung. col-:30 on «no .3335 Hanna-no. v. 025.. wagon? 3. 03m. w much. a. an». a. Hypo... a. may? at Hdfifloo ‘0 GOP}. omen—”NE baa. 3.32509 wk 5—8.. a! was: 11. w 356: .5. Mama 0. P. £8.89 mon: on 93.33... 003323 on spun—Hagan... pun—Sow. H550»- a .1325 a. 500 m. I. 33.3.5. was r. m. gonna.- 25 095233 on £25253:- 5 05.3... A £03.25. Hubcap a nods a. Paco m. a. Fat mon: I. u. mung—coax In 035.300 on 3955—35... Go 030...... moan. g .p Madge .5; page H. z. .8an moan. woo 935... 08-333 on 55:335..- socaouo. Eg- 0 flags ma. Hmco u. u. wanna: manna w. m. mung: E 0953.30 on 035me :39». an 03.3... :5 Ion-E6. agar c253. Ewan; . 9.5. 5.83. 8 8.5. w no»... u. $8. 025. wooed. aw 025. H mtg: v. H03. 0 HUHQOU ”0 t8. #5.. P 58. HUFQOO U0 “QC". UQGNH o. o Ehiozm om. "EEUNK uaao mac-wanmlwu anon. swan monmmuoo w gran-Ha 9. name 4. u. wanna— moupao melon.— go col—:33 on .3335 usaiuao can“. acui- naruéfld Ho. 53 w. w. 3.2 moan: 9.53. :0. men 9.3:. on Hugo con-n «abonuou. urn-o- a wounabuu we. puma w. u. wwgav manna. manna-u capnmo. onllu¢noo on nun-no. no. on. manna. nova-Ha 5. 500 q. u. Eat.- mousno «En—5 9.9.5.. 0.33.. on 3.53 50 Pg. E... u uncannnu Hm. race a. H. Han-PH. mourn. aun_aanumo no. .00. cpl-pnaoo on nun-boo Hunt’- uoanapnu Ho. race a. a. armory. manna. ornate aqua-i. rung on «a. «new. no. pun. nun-In § canuni .6. oo. rant on «a. «new. 9. My Hpnnww- man-a. ovnnv¢u. NIH-p- mocg Ho. wooo P0 00’... ”08:. B 0080 H. «:30. ‘0 H800 a. “can.. v. wufiq. a. “6’90. 5.. Hahn: ‘- "a“. my. PPQHO whfiwczc cw WCUmSZUzfl awn. nan. manage ~35»me we. “.ch Nov; a... Paco mounds mm. 58 Ear fl... wmoo . 5a.: H0. 500 3...: no. Paco 5 we. ammo 3.30.30... ck “WW2... w. w. 33:. mos... 2. m. Ego: woman. a. H. mama»: moan». w. w. wanna anus». o. 5.. guns mash. k. m. mgnoow manna. m. g3 moan. Sana. 965m... :0. Hub. Sun. the; 9.25.. 20. H8... H0:— 393». 9.25.. ”a. ”8. E. mama-«on 9.9me 20. flau- "’5'“. a 0033.. on 355.. a Ea... 2. 3.923. g can... on Ewan. . m col-:3. on 35.. $3333.53 3.. 0!»... on an... go 2.3.. 2.. Monica Hanna—5H Qua—w? angfig. u. 0. 023.3. 9.35.. g. ”to. 60%. E... in... on 523:8... . a0 OBI—u»... on 355.. up a. 005m: macaw... up scum. H $0.... v. pace. 0. HU»D.Q U. PO’.. ‘0 HU390. U0 HOQO. m. HUfiQO. U. “WHO. 0. HVMD.. U. “F09. HO. HUHfi.. U. “0&0. PP. HUFQOO U. $0.0. WEEEE gag? Efimfiug Enranoz can. 1 56.2w...» 0% - sun... “bongo: wanna...” H.553 NH. Hmco 5.2595. c. a. mock. 5.:ng roam! c0333.. on gnonwugo macaw 0085.? HHHHaoH. H955 NH. Hmco 5.2;»... c. a. menu. Eu. room! con-53.. on £3525. H03... 0353. HHHHSH. Hung NH. Hmoo 5.8.2.. o. a. moan. E193. a»: 005:... on Guggfio Hanna. HHHHuo». «.553. ”H. H30 595...: a. a. mod... Goa».— floamo. 09-33.. on 5339:... OH: ocean“. HHHHSH. H355 NH. Hmco 525.5. a. a. menu. room... no. 80. calls... on 51.2.53... 0H5 con—SH. HHHHvoH. H 9.555. «H. 5.0 5.5.2.. o. 2. m2... EH9. room... col—:3. on 53.53... 88. 0953. HHHHSH. H955 mm. 5.0 3.5.3. o. a. moon. moan. EHH room! in... 2— £3.33... . Moo—.8. 0353.. HHHHSH. H.555 a». 58 5.5.5. o. a. m3... .538: roan... z? .2. coin»...- ou fiafigfldu . span. 0953. HHHEH. H. 00.5.. 5.003. OH noun. H mon... u. 48. NO 5’90. U0 3.. fiEm 535E. m§m3§ Egewoz {it 0a.. .waamonaan am an... waowapou wowowwoo m unucpnw mm. wmco away»... a. I. ma... roan._u0. Ho... oosauauo. on panaocwonu. ow.w coauak. Hwnnuon. antenna mu. Hmwo wwwwpmu. o. 5. m0... Huuowo.wuuan roman. oozflnnnaa 0..>mH»o:H«.u. . 20. o... HHH».0». «3.3 mg. 500 5.8.... o. a. m0... we... who... coming: on p.335... 35.8.15... 3.5.0». H.353 m... 500 3.5.... a. a. no... 5.3.5 room! in... 0. fig»... . 19v..fl coconu. H550». Huncpnu ma. pmwo wuau».a. a. 1. m0... on... roam.._uo. pawn ooaapna.. 0. bannacpwun. anon connfiu. vanno». ~33 mq. Eco ~55... a. a. no... boom. 3.. 50.... it... 0. 5.3:... 099% cannon. wanuow. H.uc.nu a.. pace away»... a. a. we... ran... :0. P000. 00...»... .u_pmnnocpwau. 0H.H ooaacu. wawnou. . u «.583. ma. p.00 39»... o. a. mo... Eu. :0. Home. cal-3... 0. 5:53.... H.550... a. 00.5.. ”.00.... 2. 00.5. H m..... c. 3.. u. U»... 0. a... murmpgm 53G? www.méhma. ~580HP8H02 @990 «3:5 me. wwoo Hmucnue me. Hmco H2584 mm. Paco mcugu w . Eco 36553 o. .58 H3353. u. Paco nodupoud a . H000 sizes a. Hmoo wuommbn on GM wrung? a. H. manna»? a. u. wanna». a. w. maids. a. H. 3.028550. m. 4. ”Page... o. a. 593.5. 0. a. @5595. o. a. grown fidom«»0b wom¢dnoa moan. manure—.803 Ema 085230 an 532.55.. 30. noon. .9325 p mac: EB. 2°. 08.. 0255300 on 53353.. Hue-Bu a mono. H950 to. 3.0. 09593: on €553.56 “Banana a 59:3 roam. 20. BE: 023533 on €33.33 H5325 a 50an 33.039» whom? Egon on pm: 95.95.. 300 “N8. "a 5630”. Huang mos: Sago boom! is: on gnofiufioo =0. 5.8.. 2.58: mos: no: mow. hogan Galas»: or $3355.. :0. one. 3.53»- m moans Hun—dual roam. col-938 on gun—Hugo no. wow. Hubbub»: O. O. O. a. D» 025.. $083. av nova. v moo... u. moo. HUPDOO U. can; Nah“... v0 H.080 H6360. b. Pom-V. H733»- 3p abgb Iv . I Mg ECHO; Egg gage: 1111' cm: mncmcuaa an $.36 $830: $33.09 ~03...me u. Hmco H.555. o. a. moan. 3.5.101 go. ecu-£32. on 53952:... :0. $8. H5930»- moaucmne u. Sec 535.5. a. a. mouse «our room... 93:»... on 535.3: _ =0. ecu. “3.553.. m Mod; a. 500 5.253. 0. a. mouse room. 20. to»... 093::- 09 53523.. wapno»u a gang“. 0. Eco muooxufiao. a... 4. mos: 05% bonus mo. mam». 03333 on pmnpofibcuo $8.“...de 00:5? H2585 mouucmg q. Have EH33. a. M. @950 room. no. :5. 9333 on fiuofiefio 93.25 3355 q. Hmwo 5.3.3»... 5. q. macaw vegan mo. woo». 9-3333 on £33356 Huang... . Ho wound—EM 4. ~30 finance". I. w. ”562. rooms ac. 03. cognac. on ragga».- Enou- Hocucmuw Po. Eco 5325. o. a... mecca boomo 20. go. Egon on £5595... H550». m. 025.. wooog. 2. noun. H moo... u. H08. 0. 58.. u. ta». PO. HUM“.- Uo p.00 PH. 5“.“ o 0 U o PHQOO waxwhbt. Saudi. gaggmfi. FEGHRHHCZ bade wamarndoa E. 94.96 roofing morfiwougm H3383 vo. 500 533.5. a. 39 E53 H.250 mo. 53. c9333 on Eggnog. b.353- wadgpnw we. Page 333.5. a. a. bonus roam. mo. omm. 00.25309 on bmaozwocuo HHHH=OMo @3254 Ho. Sec 455.5. a. a. macaw “but. 20. Home. 0055.33 on 56335.»: H525»: S. macaw-Ed. Ho. 5.00 “.358: o. q... magma coowou boom? 0233339 on $52556 5.5.50: Novas—s3. 9.3. H08 H.503. a. q. mucus. roman :0. up?! banana»: on bmuwofigno Ego; _ “5 ~33pr Ho. wane macho. a. q. moan... hauwpmaou. Monaco: 0035:»: on gapoaafid Fame H.335: 5. Eco “.9363. a. m... mocha. 383$. Hanna. gang-c on Emagwgno :0. Sum. Huang we 3..qu HP. 53 H.503. a. a. mo :8 Eng henna. 935.33 on €353: Maugham HP. Homo 3.3.3.... 3. w. mos: our room. 20. H3. cognac. on 53:35.0: oven—on». c253. Hannah.» be 005“.- 500089. OP 8g. H. "0...... Us 5C0. My”. HUFBO. v. “PCP. Pa. HUFéoo ”0 E80 P00 Hdflbo. U. Page \\«l|ul.f! II. llllll . ‘.ll Jillfli WEE? wanna»? gfidcwlmfia ~EFCCH~r8Hc~¢ ; taro wncmmmwma um rumuo roomnpou rmwmfldma pm waducrnw w». Hmoo wauaoed. a. w. mocha wpooafiwowa rowan. oosfiunnmw ow pmwuacwecuo 20. Hwom. mvoanou oocueu. anoppua Ho Woaucanw w». wmco vacuo. a. H. :vcao roamo_zo. wow. oosapnnoo on >mnpocwncno 53:93? won—gown we wocucwaw Hm. Hmco wbwww. a. _zocmo wmmHo anon: wanna. ooaaponoo on no»: who :0. wuoo. flaumu¢u nua_=owm¢noo cannon oozuwu. Havana moducaak ww. Hawo wmueoaa. a. w. cocoa omwdana Hcomo_zo. can. ooaapnaoo ou.>mupocpnauo woman coasaw. Hununun pm movucmue Hm. wcwo wcbunou. w. m. mncco ‘anacaou Vanna. ooaapuuoo on rmupocwwcuo 03.958 . Ewan we wouncunk NH. Hmwo wwcsv. m. m. vouauo onomcoba hcomo oceanoaoo on kuauoo 20. Paco. whamm- . mo woawcaww up. Mano mowwm. a. mason rwpooduwwo henna. ooaapanoo on bmnnocwecuo . connoq coabnw. unnum- H00 83“.. ”COOHch a” 008. H. m..... U. Hg. Poo Hvuboo v. was. wbwzmmm ECSCbE wnzv.A.\4wrslrLrl cad. yuan. ‘wkwrrca mommuuoo 114 coooscau Pm. pea. :ucmo naadnww. q. u. an... noaapaumo on «am. can R.aUano coomaamn Hm. Home mesa. mpaupau. o. a. AHHH.v ogaauanmo on «u. H:a»o»wna uaooavon Hm. Hmme mach. oopmou. h._m. aHo.. 0055990.. ou_an«. who Kama-mp boa-acou Hm. wmmo moan. mounouuoa. U. m. “Ho.w ooaauwaoa ou_aau. nua_g.mb.~m boaaSuan pm. Home mono. rpnow. a. w. fluo.v unannouo. ou_gbbn»poacuouma uoanaucn we. Home mafia. wwpnou.ua. I. o. Aha.v oaaapna.. on_gbbchoo«suoum. @3833. .5. Fame moan. 25.33. a. u... ”5.5. 08-53.. on :36 Ba Kama-nu woe.avau pm. Home mos-o mpouauauou. q. u. Aeoan.g ooaapuno. on saw. «no magnuwo wo. 005m. wooodn. up conm. w man... u. no. a. 99“.. U. ”“0. mm. H53: w. mm... W“. HUHO.C U. mac. m+. Hapn.. u. mmc. no. Hd»9.. 0. who. ”0. HUPQO. U. RUG. l yrrlib. ,"|.n.. 4v 4..) .. 4...;\....... 1. . - 4. via?” 14:73.... 4.3.. . _J )4. .\ Cb..lkH.((tr\l\m. MW. RH?!» H».brr(>\CCE LL.FC (CE—Cnflrkrl can. swan. mk[rrgs mon.uu.o ‘ c.005caa Pm. Fame :ocma wwoacwa. H. U. ammo” nomawnaoo on name can Koauuno Umomavan pm. Home moan. mwawpaa. o. d. “HHH.V ogaapaumo on an. McQMOHmHu cocoavon Hm. Hmmo many. common. a. m. an... coasuaaao on a.«. can ziauumw baa-acou Hm. wmmc moan. maunouuoa. c. m. “Ho.v ooaaufiuoa on game who KUpbuar nonmauan Hm. Hams mono. bmoow. H. H. ”Ho.v naaapaaa. on Knunnooacuouma coonsumu pm. Home mono. wppbonbuo. a. o. nvw.v onaapa¢oo on.gnucuoo«nuoumo boonacou Hm. Fame moan. puncnmou. a. H. “mp-m.. ogaap««.. on spa. who numb-«u woo.aucu pm. Home mos-o wpopauauou. q. u. Aeoun.v ooaapunoo on ape. can aaabuwo no. NH. mu. Nu. m». nu. ma. 095m. wooodo. up conm. H mon... u. no. Hdflaoo U. 80. Hd»9.. w. map. HUHG... U. ”GO. HUHQ.O 6. ”We. Hdwo.. c. ”#9. HUMQ.. U. Emma. d.nfll.ll| J CRMCCCmtuWGH UHFFU Hnlwcwdcvh HtHL O 1.}; .... , CH‘CLtrLrL Undo 11: snow. ‘11 ‘Mwauba 1 I. moaanaoo cocmacaa Hm. Hmmo macaw mHanoa. x. r. “acu5.u COBSHwaoo o: swwm can :omuuwc coofipcnu Ha. Hume _mopmm vacspua. o. aeoxmav ooBEHnuom on «we chHoHpnumq cocoaucu Hm. Hmmo mosoo mpHoc. m. b. ”aapb.v ooaBHaaoo on on. qcnpopmnwmm cocoavon no. Hmmo mono. mumoxpuuunmo. a. o. w. .NOb.~ coaauaoco on tau. mum Kappomo coocsuou mo. Hume coca. road... w. o. »<»~.v coaspaaoo on «a. qdnpanwnuao .3ng o. 5.0 menu. go. a. :HHL 00553. on an: 25 385an Hmbnmaw a. Hmco mecca wanHnu. w. a. armb.v ooaanaaoo on sun. mun scab-am qpuccux o. Homo mace. yucca». a. newwmuv ooaawaeoa on «no qdmuouwwwuu wbHHH a. Hmco manna ccwdoaaon. o. w. Haowwmv coaapdaoo on «a. Mcowopmnumm ma. comm. zoooaa. uH comm. H man... u mmu. “q. mm. .U I. . mo. UH. aw. um. m6. 11 Hdpgo. v0 mg. Hawa.. HvHa.. HdHa.. Howw.. Haua.. HwHa.. HdHa.. U. My. Ha. U. Ha. Ha. My. um». UUQ. GAO O #0“- 0 #0m. #oa. uocq. prulLGRnJHY PYIXATY SOJHCES Congressional Record 50th. 50th. 50th. 50th. 50th. 50th. 50th. 50th. 50th. 50th. Slat. Elst. I Elst. Elst. filst. Slat. 51st. Cong.. Cong.. Cong.. Cong.. Cong.. Cong., Cong.. Cong.. Cong.. Cong.. Cong.. Cong.. Cong., Cong.. Cong., Cong.. C0118 O . Richardson, J. D.. Editor, lst. let. lat. lat. lat. lat. lat. and. and. 2nd. lat. lat. let. lst. lst. lst. lst. 3683.. 3633.. 5838.. 3083.. 3988.. 8688.. 8688.. 3088.. 8638.. 3833.. 8688.. 8633.. 8988.. 8988.. Sess.. 3688.. 8688.. Vol. Vol. V01. V01. V01. 19, Part I. 19. Part II. 19, Part III. 19. Part v11. 19. Part VIII. v01. 19. Part IX. Index, Vol. 19. V01. 30, Part I. V01. V01. V01. V01. V01. V01. V01. V01. V01. 20, 20, 21. 21. 21. 21. 21, 31. 21, Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part II. III. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. "A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. 1789-1897", (10 vols.) Vol. VIII. Washington. Government Print- ing Office, 1898. BOOKS Coolidge, L. A.; Curtis, 1 . Eo; Faulkner, H. U n FISh. C. R.; Gunton, G .; Hacker, L. M. and Kendrick. B. B. HICKS. J. D0; Humphrey. E. F.; Jenks, J. W.‘ Jennings, W. W.: Jones, E.; K118111311 , O . We: Lloyd, 0.; Porter, Kb H.‘ "An Old Fashioned Senator: Orville H. Plett of Connecticut". G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1910. "The Trusts and Economic Controlfi McGraw-Hill Book Company. New YOrk, 1931. "nmericen Economic History: Harper and brothers, New York. 1959. "The Rise of the Common Man,'1820- 1850.“ Macmillan Company, New York, 1899. "Trusts and the Public." D. Apple- ‘ton and Company. New Ybrk, 1899. "The United States Since 1866." F. S. Crofts and Company. New York. 1932. "Pepulist Revolt." University of minnesote Press. Minneapolis, 1951. "An Economic History Of the United Estates". Century Company} New York. 1931. "The Trust Problem." Doubleday,Page and Company, New York. 1940. "A History of Economic Progress in the United States." Crowell Pub- lishing Compar y, New York.1986. "The Trust Problem in the United States." Macmillan Company. New York. 1955. ”The Policy of the United States Toward Monopoly." Columbia Univer- sity, New York. 1914. "Henry Demarest Lloyd." Nev! York, G. P. Eutna m' 5 Sons, l9ld. "National Party Platforms." New York, Macmillan Company, 1924. “we! RhOdeS, J. F.; Nobinson, W. 1.; Van Hise, 0.13.; PERIODICALS Contemporary Vol. 57; Nineteenth Centurx: Vol. 29; North American Review: V01. 145; 95-" '\ . 1—11- 0 N1" ibpiiPI’J’ L) "History of the Unitec States Since the Compromise of 1859." Vol. 8. New York. Macmillan Company. 1919. "Thomas B. Reeds”) Dodd, Mead and Company, New York, 1950. "Concentration and Control." Nac- milian Company, New York, 1951. June, 1890. hey . 1.891 . May. 1888. Detroit Free Press; January 39, 1888. (Editorial) ~25. “I In “WWII 293 TATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES ll lflllllllll nu 3487 2568