8 Conservative.
MOTIIUIt OF TKUSTS.
Is the Tariff , Say Republican Authorities.
[ By LawBon Purdy of the Reform Club of New-
York. ]
Trusts , the offspring of special privi
leges , are protected and nourished by
the tariff.
To asserb that all monopoly is due to
the tariff is to discredit the valid argu
ment for tariff repeal. The American
people are agreed that there is no good
monopoly in private hands , and if there
ever was a time when there was danger
of tame submission , that time has passed.
The real danger is of such an ill-directed
attack being made by the foes of monopoly
ely that monopolists may use the people's
weapons for their own advantage.
Another danger is the enactment of re
strictions which are certain to hamper
and restrain that beneficent competition ,
which is verily the life of trade.
Monopoly's Specious Defenders.
Monopoly does not lack defenders , and
the most specious plea is that which
frankly admits that trusts which enjoy
special privileges are bad and then
asserts , directly or by implication , that
such trusts are few in number. This
was the argument of Mr. Bourke Cock-
ran at the trust conference , and he then
went on to glorify competition and to
discuss the theoretical trust , which has
no privilege. The trust which has no
privilege never existed and in all human
probability never will exist. Monopoly
is born of privilege and of privilege
only. This fact cannot be too often
reiterated , for arguments like that of
Mr. Cockrau have deceived many. Mr.
Gans , a good anti-monopolist , writing to
the Journal of the Knights of Labor ,
assumes that seven-tenths of the trusts
do not rely on governmental favor. I
believe it is impossible for Mr. Gans to
name a single one that does not owe its
power for evil to governmental favor ,
and he will find it very difficult to name
ten , out of the four hundred or more ,
which do not directly or indirectly re
ceive aid and comfort from the tariff.
Natural Monopolies are Not Trusts.
It is imperatively necessary to dis
criminate between business naturally
competitive and that which is not.
Businesses not naturally competitive
are now generally classed as natural
monopolies and include all which depend
on the delegated right of eminent
domain for their creation. The people
are awakening to the importance ol
dealing correctly with these monopolies ,
and it is time they did , for there is no
more corrupting power in local govern
ment. Moreover , the interstate com
merce commission , in its 1809 report
says of railways :
"There is probably no one thing today
which does so much to force out the
small operator and to build up those
; rusts and monopolies against which law
and public opinion alike beat in vain as
discrimination in freight rates. "
It would be interesting and surprising
if trust defenders can name a single
monopoly consolidation , or a single trust ,
: .hat . does not owe its birth and existence
to natural monopoly in private hands ,
to patents or to tariffs.
Now the tariff is most easily reached
and when the tariff trusts are gone it
will be comparatively easy to deal with
the rest. Those that remain will be
weakened and the cause of their monopoly
ely will be more plainly seen. There is
no need to fear any mere aggregation of
Capital which has no privilege ; it will
only exist if it can effect economies and
perform good service.
Domestic anil Export Prices.
The very best way to study the effect
of the tariff on trusts would be to take a
list of trusts and set opposite each trust
product the amount of the customs duty
and then compare the foreign and
domestic prices of these products. If
Governor Roosevelt had done this he
would not have made the silly statement
that the sugar trust has no tariff pro
tection. In fact , its protection amounts
to 50 per cent or more , as Mr. Henry T.
Oxuard has shown. Even the beef trust ,
to which he also referred , has protection
on hides of 15 per cent , and on beef to
the extent of 25 per cent , and sells beef
in Germany 25 per cent cheaper than in
the United States , as reported from
Hamburg , Sept. 24 , 1809. Australians
are shipping tinned beef to Germany in
competition with the beef trust and in
the absence of customs duty would no
doubt ship to the United States and
lower domestic prices , to say nothing of
the effect of competition from Canada
and Mexico.
Republicans Against Trust Fostering
Tarllltt.
More clear-sighted protectionists than
Mr. Roosevelt see that if they want to
save protection at all they must cut off
duties on trust-produced articles at once.
Former Governor Foster , of Ohio , ad
mitted this in his speech at the Chicago
trust conference. Others have been
more emphatic. Ex-Senator Washburn ,
republican , of Minnesota , recently told
the New York Tribune that the trusts
in some coses are benefiting by protec
tive duties , especially those engaged in
the manufacture of steel rails and tin
plate , and that it is the duty of a re
publican congress to remove the duties
at once whenever it finds that a trust is
depending for its exorbitant profits
largely on protective duties. The St
Paul Pioneer Press , the chief republican
newspaper in Minnesota , takes the same
position , and the Chicago Times-Herald
of March 21 , says :
"When The Pioneer Press declares
that it is the duty of the republican
party to repeal every protective duty
under the shelter of which its beue-
Iciaries have organized a trust or com
bination of any sort to advance prices it
meets the views of The Times-Herald tea
a dot. Most certainly it should be the
duty of congress to abolish or suspend
the protective duty on the products of
any industry which has been organized
into a trust and which has arbitrarily
raised the prices of such products. No
mercy or consideration should be shown
to any combination of capital that takes
advantage of a protective tariff to mulct
American consumers. "
False Tin Plato Statistics.
Of course , Senator Washburn has
been bitterly attacked by the thorough
going partisan protectionists. A sample
of the recklessness of this criticism is
,
taken from The American Economist of
October 18th. This paper copied it
from the Minneapolis Tribune , and the
Tribune's criticism is based largely upon
a quotation from "that old reliable re
publican paper , the Philadelphia Press ,
now edited by President McKinley's
postmaster-general , Charles Emory
Smith. " The Press sorrows over Wash-
burn's "woeful ignorance concerning
the relation of the tariff to the trust
organizations , " and proceeds to en
lighten him as follows :
"From August 1st , 1898 , to August
1st , 1899 , the standard grade of tin
plates quoted by the treasury depart
ment in the monthly summary of the
Bureau of Statistics increased in price
77 cents a box. In the same period the
same grade of goods in Wales increased
$1.45 a box , and that foreign increase
was nearly all made in 1809. In other
words , in free trade England tin plates
increased twice as much in price as in
the United States under a protective
tariff.
"Why do men like Washburn make
such unfounded charges against the
tariff ? If he does not know what he is
talking about he has no business to say
anything.
"Prices of tin plate have risen because
every article used in their manufacture
lias increased in price. But. the far
greater increase in price in free trade
England shows how utterly ridiculous
is this cry about the tariff being re
sponsible for the trusts. "
This sounds plausible and the reader
unaccustomed to protectionist methods
would be deceived by the above statis
tics which are false. From August 1st ,
1898 , to August 1st , 1899 , foreign plates
rose $1.20 per 100 Ib. box , instead of
$1.45 , as stated by the Philadelphia
Press , and American plates rose $1.80
instead of 77 cents. On August 1st
American plates had risen 60 cents more
than foreign plates , and six days later
they rose 27 cents higher , while prices
of foreign plates remained unchanged.
On August Oth American plates sold- for
' " " " " " "
