The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1888-09-08
JINoo JIM ON TRUSTS.
How Republican Paper wipes the Floor
with the Plumed Knight.

JINGo jim ON TRUSTS.
How Republican Paper wipes the Floor
with the P1umed Knight.
In his speech at Portland Mr.. Blaine
thus defined his views upon the SUBJ
ject Of trusts:
When President Cleveland delivered his mes
sage he had something TO say to the American
people about the danger Of trusts" I think
there have since been no Democratic papers in
the country, whether they understood the
meaning OF the word or not, that have not been
constantly warning the people as TO the hor-
rtble danger OF trusts" tLaughter.1 Well,
shall not discuss trusts this afternoon. shall
not venture to say that they are altogether ad.
vantageous or dlsadvantageous. They are
largely private affairs with which neither Pres
ident Cleveland nor any private citizen has
any particular right to interfere.
The Tribune submits that in thus
recognizing and supporting the trust
monopolies Mr.. Blaine is placing him
self in direct antagonism to the plank
In the Republican platform Ct 1888
which says:
We declare our opposition to all combina.
tions OF capital organized in trusts or otherwise
TO control arbitrarily the condition Of trade
among Ola citizens, and we commend to Con.
vress and the State Legislatures, in their re.
spective Jurisdictions, such legislation rs will
prevent the execution Of all schemes to oppress
the people by undue charges on their supplies
or by unjust rates for the transportation OF
their products to market
Mr. Blaine says that trusts are
''largely private affairs with which
neither President Cleveland nor any
private citizen has any particular
right to Interfere" II this be so why
should the Republican party call upon
Congress and the State Legislatures to
interfere with themp Mr.. Blaine's
view is flippant and superficial one,
to call it by no harsher name. Ths
illegal combinations of producers to
kill of competition and fleece con-
sumers are manifestly public. Con-
gress has recognized them as such by
passing legislation heretofore n thsis
interests and its members are now
recognizing them again by discussing
legislation which will relax their hold
apon the people and choke them of
from their huge profits. The courts
have recognized them as public by en-
tertaining proceedings against the oil
trust and the sugar trust. The law
recognizes them as public under the
broad term of forestalling and by fix
ing penalties for conspiracy to sup
press competition and dominate
prices. If the sugar trust. for in
stance, is a purely private affair, why
are its agents haunting the lobby in
Washington to influence public legis-
lation in its interests? If Mr.. Blaine
is correct in his assertion that they
are "private affairs with which the
Government has no right to interfere,
then most certainly the Government
has no right to bolster them up and
befriend them, and should step down
and out from its partnership with
them by withdrawing its tariff prote.-
ton from every form OF trust monop-
oily. 1t will then be seen whether as
purely "private affairs they can
longer rob consumers without Govern
ment help.
In further defending and apologize
ing for trusts Mr.. Blaine contends that
the tariff has nothing to do with them
and that free-trade England is as full
of trusts as high-tariff America. To
sustain his point he cites a coffin trust
in the former country. This is an
other instance of flippant treatment of
the subject. If trusts would be possi-
BILE in this country under reduced
tariff why is it that the Havemeyer
combination is fighting any reduction
of the sugar taxp Why is it that Mr..
Carnegie, the head of the steel trust,
opposes any reduction of the steel taxP
If the Havemeyer trust could still
pocket its $50, 900, 900 every year now
made out of excessive profits from the
public by the high prohibitory rates
with those rates abolished, and if Mr..
Carnegie could still pocket his million
and a half every year with free trade
in operation, would they be likely to
antagonize every proposition to re-
duce dutiesp They know, and Mr..
Blaine ought to know, that without
the high sugar and steel tariff they
could not keep up the corners in their
products, and that reduction of the
tariff to reasonable rates would pro
vide an insuperable obstacle against
killing competition and imposing ex-
cessive and illegitimate profits upon
consumers. What is a trust but a
combination of tariff-protected manu-
facturers to strangle competition, mo.
nopolize industry and its products and
fleece consumersp It has no other
purpose, whether it is sugar, steel
or leadpencil trust. The ultra tariff
tax is their sole support. The connec.
tion between tariff monopoly and
trustism is lear. So long as exces-
sive duties are maintained, these trade
rings will be enable to bleed the pub
lie. Reduce these duties to de ent
reasonable figure, and they will be
smashed. Mr.. Blaine will not helI
the prospects If the party by appear
ing as the advocate of trusts, which
the party platform has specifically ant
Enthusiastically condemned. He can say
much that is interesting and profita
BILE on the tariff and wages questions
but he should be warned in time not tt
make the error of apologizing fol
trust monopolies or whistling then
down the wind as of no consequence