Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 18, 1911)
SFfg airausT is, iii The Commoner. ft 5 - -i'f tarrvt9nafrT ?T, i.-w-?"r now to prove that a corporation Is a trust or a part of a trust or monopoly and If congress docs hot remedy this statute in the future, tho at tornoys for the government will not only havo to prove that a party is part of a trust or monopoly, but they will have to go further and prove that such combination unreasonably in terferes with trade and commerce." Mr. Oldfleld's bill is as follows: "House Roll 13,004. A bill to declare certain acts in restraint of interstate or foreign com merce to be unlawful and unreasonable. "Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, "That every contract, combination, or con spiracy of whatever kind or character in re straint of trade or commerce among tho several states or with foreign nations which is declared to bo illegal by an act entitled 'An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, known as the Sherman anti trust law, whenever made, engaged in, or con tinued after the approval of this act, shall be presumed, construed, and adjudged to be un reasonable. "Section 2. That no contract, combination, or conspiracy of whatever kind or character In restraint of trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations which is declared to be Illegal by an act entitled, 'An act to protect trade and commerce against un lawful restraints and monopolies- approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, known as the Sherman anti-trust law, whenever made, engaged in or continued, shall be con strued or adjudged to be reasonable. "Section 3. That every person 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 by a term of imprison ment of not less than one year or more than ten years." , SENATOR KERN'S STRONG LETTER Senator Kern's letter to a woolen manufac turer of his state is worth reading. Tho sena tor strikes from the shoulder, as usual. He says: . T. F. Thieme, Esq.,. Secretary Textile Manu facturers' Association: My Dear Sir Your letter of tho 28th instant, containing copy of resolutions adopted by your association at its recent convention held at French Lick has been received. It Is perhaps unnecessary for me to say In reply that I do not agree with tho sentiment of your letter or the declarations of your as sociation. The objection to the continued agita tion of the tariff question is in my judgment particularly untenable. I remember no protest from any protected in terest against the agitation which resulted in the enactment of the vicious and oppressive Payne-Aldrich bill, a measure condemned with out stint by fair men ofall political parties, the president himself declaring that schedule "K" is indefensible. Now that this measure, under which the earnings of the people are being unjustly ab sorbed, is in force, your association demands that the people be compelled to suffer from its extor tions until there shall be a report from "the tariff commission." Your association being made up of well in formed men, must know that there is no tariff commission. A tariff board was provided for and created, but denied power necessary for the purpose of investigation. It can not compel the attendance of witnesses nor the production of books and papers. It is now vainly endeavoring to ascer tain the alleged difference in the cost of pro duction at home and abroad, but in arriving at the cost of production here is compelled to rely up on such data as may be handed to it by the men Who are beneficiaries of the present law, while it must of necessity "guess off" the coBt of pro duction abroad. The reports of this board al ready made havo been unsparingly criticised, and little weight will be given to any of its determi nations. The- proposition that tho "adjustment of rates" should be left entirely in the hands of a permanent tariff commission yet to be ap pointed is equally untenable. The question as to how much the people shall be taxed for the support of the government, is a question to be determined by the people them selves under our form of government. If the people of Allen county, or the city of Fort Wayne believed that they were being grossly overtaxed, do you think they would bo willing to surrender their right to vote on that proposi tion and give over tholr authority to some board to bo appointed by some man who beliovod In overtaxation as a principle? My position on the question of tariff taxation was well known to the people of Indiana when they elected mo. I do not believe that the peoplo of Fort Wayno should pay a single dollar for city taxes in excess of tho amount necessary for the economical government of the city. I beliovo that tho peoplo of Allen county should not pay a cent more for tho support of the county government than the county needs, and I am equally firm in my belief that tho national government has no right to take from tho people, by any form of taxation, moro money than is necessary for the legitimate purposes of that government. In other words, I believe that when an American citizen earns a dollar that dollar belongs to him, and that neither city, county, state nor nation has a right to take any part of that dollar from the man who earned it except as such government may actually need it for its proper administration. The idea that the taxing power of the govern ment should be exercised for tho purpose of compelling tho masses of tho people to con tribute from their earnings for tho benefit of a few men favored by Bpecial legislation, is con trary to all my notions of fair dealings and that equality which should bo tho basis of all sys tems of taxation. For these reasons I am opposed to all so called protective tariffs, and whenever I havo an opportunity to cast a vote which will bring down the rate of taxation to a purely revenue basis I shall cast such vote promptly and with pleasure. I have no sort of doubt that when trade barriers are lowered and commercial in tercourse with other nations is encouraged tho markets of the world will be opened to our manufacturers and that with our indomitable energy, Inventive genius, Improved machinery, cheap raw materials, superior facilities for trans portation, superiority of our labor and better workmanship, we shall capture those markets and become the greatest manufacturing nation in the world. That will bring about a natural healthy growth of business in strong contrast to tho artificial hot house growth which must of neces sity result from our present system of taxing all tho people to secure bounties for tho few who may by special legislation derive tem porary benefit from the so-called protective system. I have written at this great length that my answer to your letter may serve also as an answer to any similar communications that may come to me during the pendency of proposed tariff legislation. While our differences of opinion are marked and fundamentally Irreconcilable, I shall be pleased to have your views at any time on any questions. With kind personal regards, I am, very truly yours, ,r JOHN W. KERN." Practical Tariff Talks Much of tho confusion in the public mind over the tariff question arises from the fact that It has been the policy of high tariff advocates always to involve tho discussion of the question in a maze of technical phraseology, coupled with the employment of masses of figures that have little or no bearing upon the matter at issue. In truth it is not so complicated or involved as most persons think it is. A tariff is levied, under the protection theory, for tho express purpose of enabling the domestic manufacturer to charge a higher price for his product than he could get if the ports were free to the merchandise of the world. It is manifest that if an article that is imported comes into compe tition with a similar article manufactured hero, and that imported article bears a tariff of 40 per cent, its market price is 40 per cent higher than if there were no tariff; and the Imported article being raised In price 40 per cent, the home manufacturer will not sell his product for materially less than the competitive article brings. In fact the tariff was put upon it so that he could charge moro than otherwise would bo possible. If this tariff be so high that no foreign-made article can profitably be imported under it, it may be set down as prohibitivo. When a tariff rate is prohibitive it means that the home manu facturer has tho market all to himself, and can make, subject only to wltatovor competition, exists, wlmtover prlco ho pleases, only so that it Is not so high thu it starts a flow of Importa tions. Tho reason advanced by tho protectionist for a high duty on imports is that, given free dom from competition by manufacturers em ploying poorly-paid labor, domestic manufac turers will bo developed, labor will always find profitable omploymont and a homo markot afforded for all tho produco of our farms. In theory this sounds very nice. In practice, It Is true, manufactures have boon highly dovolopod, but instead of Inaugurating an era of competi tion tho groator tho dovolopmont tho groator tho tendency has boon toward combinations and trusts, which moans higher prices. In practico, Instead of labor being assured of continuous employment at high wages, employment is no toriously Intermittent and wages are almost Invariably lowor In tho protected industries than in tho unprotected. And our farmers still ox port largo quantities of grain. A tariff duty possesses all of tho cssontial ele ments of n tax. Tho prlco of tho clothing ond wears, tho prlco of what ono uses or consumes, If burdened with a tariff, is arbitrarily raised in price because of that duty. Only that portion of this tax which Is collected through tho cus tom houses finds Its way into tho public treasury. That portion which tho protective tariff enables each manufacturer to levy goes only Into his own pocket. As for example, a pair of blankets coBting $3 abroad can not como through tho customs house and into tho American jobber's warehouse until after It has paid a tariff tax of approximately 125 per cent, or $3.75. Mani festly, it can not bo sold for less than $3 plus $3.75 or $0.75. Manifestly also, tho domestic maker of blankets will not sell for less than that figure becauso ho wants and takes tho protection tho law affords him, and there Is not enough local competition to cut his prlco materially. Thus, for all practical purposes, the tariff operat ing just as its makers and sponsors want it to act, whoever buys cither blanket will pay at least $6.75. If it is the foreign-made blanket that Is bought, the tax goes Into tho treasury, but if tho American-made article is purchased, tho manufacturer pockets it. By tho operation of tho protective system, therefore, we allow tho manufacturer to collect tho tax on what ho sells, and trust to him to distribute the proceeds fairly. The protectionist says that the truo measuro of a tariff duty Is tho difference between labor costs hero and abroad, together with a reasonable profit for tho manufacturer. Thus, by law, is guaranteed as much as any government can guarantee, that a manufacturer whose Industry Is protected shall make a reasonable profit. In addition It makes him the trustee to hand over to tho labor ho employs that portion of tho tax which repre sents the difference In labor cost. How does ho go about that task? Who supervises his execu tion of It. and who checks up 6n him to see that tho trust is properly administered? It is a trusteeship like no other trusteeship on earth. It is unlimited, unregulated, unsupervised. Tho result is that the manufacturer pockets as much of it as possible, gets his labor as cheaply as ho can, Imports from Europe, If no other way presents Itself to get cheap labor, that pauper labor he so affects to abhor when he Is asking for a tariff In short, does as he pleases, subject only to natural causes and conditions. This Is tho system, as wo have It the protection system. Nothing very mysterious about it or its opera tions, is there? C. Q. D. 0 0 WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN If the democratic members of tho house did not submit to secret caucuses on public affairs there would be no doubt concerning any of their proceed ings. Why should any democratic member submit to tho secret caucus? Why should not tho public business which these men have to do be transacted in the open so that their constituents may be ablo to fix responsibility for all that they do and for all that they fail to do? The secret caucus is one of the worst foes of popular government. If you are opposed to it write your member of -congress and urge him to protest against it. iMfc