Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 5.djvu/243

 THE CONTROL OF TRUSTS 229

was copied by Missouri in her thrice-amended act; while Michi- gan has taken her definition of a trust from the Illinois law of 1893, which, in turn, was based on the original Texas law of 1889. This tendency to copy is an indication at once of the common feeling in the various localities and of the lack of ingenuity on the part of most of the legislatures in grappling with the prob- lem. It is to be noticed that these most drastic laws were enacted by agricultural states. The demand for anti-trust legis- lation was strong enough to secure the introduction of bills in nearly all the legislatures which met last winter; but in states whose manufacturing interests are large, e. g., Indiana, these were easily disposed of. The tendency of the leaders of both political parties to look with favor upon strong anti-trust declara- tions is an evidence of the widespread feeling on the subject. This widespread interest should be a stimulus for the widest pos- sible discussion of the possibilities in the way of public control of great combinations.

A summary of the four laws above mentioned will give us a view of the most advanced legislation yet enacted on this sub- ject : ( I ) A trust is defined as the union of two or more persons, firms, or corporations, whereby capital, credit, property, skill, trade, custom, or any other valuable things or possessions, are combined," for the purpose of restricting trade, limiting produc- tion, preventing competition, increasing or reducing price, fixing a standard price, or in any way interfering with free competition in any business whatever.' This trust may be formed by agree- ment or contract, the ordinary methods of partnership or cor- poration, the holding of trust certificates, or shares of stock of another corporation,^ resulting in the union of distinct firms or corporations or their property and rights.* (2) The persons or corporations which enter into such combinations for the purposes named shall be adjudged guilty of conspiracy to defraud = and

' Texas act, sec. 2.

•Michigan, sec. I ; c/. Illinois definition, this Journal, Vol. I, p. 42c.

'Michigan, sec. 10 ; Tenas, sec. 2.

♦Texas, sec. 6.

s Arkansas, sec. I ; .Missouri, Act of April 18, 1899, sec. i ; Texas, sec. I.