iness, property, and trade of the people of the United
States. And for one I do not intend to be turned from this course
by finespun constitutional quibbles or by the plausible pretexts
of associated or corporate wealth and power.

"It is said that this bill will interfere with lawful trade, with
the customary business of life. I deny it. It aims only at unlawful
combinations. It does not in the least affect combinations in aid
of production where there is free and fair competition. It is the
right of every man to work, labor, and produce in any lawful
vocation, and to transport his production on equal terms and
conditions and under like circumstances. This is industrial liberty,
and lies at the foundation of the equality of all rights and
privileges."

I then recited the history of such legislation in England, from
the period of Coke and Littleton to the present times. I also
quoted numerous decisions in the courts of the several states, and
explained the necessity of conferring upon the courts of the United
States jurisdiction of trusts and combinations extending over many
states.

Various amendments were offered, and a long debate followed, until,
on the 25th of March, Mr. George moved to refer the whole subject
to the committee on the judiciary. I opposed this motion on the
ground that such a reference would cause delay and perhaps defeat
all action upon the bill. I stated that I desired a vote upon it,
corrected and changed as the Senate deemed proper. The motion was
defeated by the vote of yeas 18, nays 28. Subsequently, however,
the bill was referred to the committee on the judiciary, with
instructions to report within twenty days. On the 2nd of April
Mr. Edmunds, chairman of that committee, reported a substitute for
the bill, and stated that, while it did not entirely meet his views,
he was willing to support it. Mr. Vest, Mr. George and Mr. Coke,
members of the committee, also made statements to the same effect.
When the bill was taken up on the 8th of April I said I did not
intend to open any debate on the subject, but would state that
after having fairly and fully considered the substitute proposed
by the committee on the judiciary, I would vote for it, not as
being precisely what I wanted, but as the best thing, under all
the circumstances, that the Senate was prepared to give in that
direction. The bill passed by the vote of 52 yeas and 1 nay,
Senator Blodgett, of New Jersey, alone voting