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
