No Trust Legislation Likely

NO TRUST LEGISLATION LIKELY

If it be true as reported in Washington dispatches that John D. Rockefeller and other trust magnates have sent messages to senators urging them to refrain from passing any trust legislation, or if some such legislation must be passed, to see to it that the publicity clause of the pending legislation be stricken out, it shows that these great concerns are ready to put their hands on any legislation inspired in the interest of the public in the matter of control of these concerns. This is important for the reason that a word from such sources is almost like a command issued to legislators, certain ones at least.

It was given out at first that the trusts would not oppose legislation on the trust subject, believing that their selfish interests were less likely to be hurt by the present congress than by the next. But now, granting the Washington reports to be true, this was given out simply to allay public irritation on the matter and then prevent such legislation quietly. At any rate it is well understood that the trusts have maintained high priced lawyers in Washington working to prevent trust legislation or any measure requiring publicity in the transaction of trust business. It now begins to look as though no effective trust legislation will be passed this session. The Elkins' bill is regarded as wholly innocent of any purpose to hold the trust to any kind of adequate accountability to the public and some such measure is probably all that it will be possible to get by this congress. Whether any such subterfuge will quiet the people and lull them into rest upon the trust question remains to be seen. But it certainly looks as though there will have to be a much more insistent public demand for trust legislation than there is today before congress will do anything for the benefit of the people.

-

President Roosevelt has declined to act as arbitrator for the allies in the matter of preferential payment of claims against Venezuela. Having refused to act as arbitrator of the whole question earlier in the game, it is difficult to see how he could do anything but refuse now. There would be manifest impropriety in his acting at this stage. It would be very unjust to Minister Bowen. And then in all probability the move is but an easy way of getting the whole matter out of the hands it is now in and taking it elsewhere. The matter of preferential treatment will now go, it is said, to The Hague. This is the proper place for the controversy to be taken.