The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1892-03-26
A Disengenuous Advocate.


Statesman's behalf is that it is 8
very heterogeneous advocate. It sc,
out in it's argument Of last week BY
accusing the KEYSTONE of slipping
away from its former position in
the discussion Of duty on WOODEN
goods, and then proceeded to dis.
prove its own assertion by quoting
our articles on the subject. EN-.
ploying the Statesman's somewhat
inelegant phraseology we did say
In our first article we believed the
price of goods was "swelled by
something like the amount of the
tariff. In q succeeding article we
changed the phraseology to ''in-
creased by the amount of the tariff. u
The Statesman employed the word
''swelled," as the context plainly
shows, to mean increased, and so
did We; aud unless it means that it
does not mean anything. So that
part is settled, leaving the KEY
STONE occupying up to that time
precisely the same position it did
at the outset.
But how is it with the Statesman?
Up to that time it's hobby had been
that the manufacturer and, Incl
dentally the laborer, were protected
by the Mckinley law. Finding its
position untenable, it veered off on
to the entirely original theory that
it was opportunity" that was pro-
tected, thus giving the lie to all of
the arguments advanced by all of
the republican papers in the land
for the past twenty years. Reply
ing to this new argument, and to
expose it's fallscy and monstrosity
we admitted that opportunity was
protected, but showed that the OPP
portunity protected was the oppor-
tunity to form and maintain trusts
for the more complete robbery of
labor. The Statesman had slipped
away from it's original position and
we followed in order to drive it
from its new, as we had already
driven it from its old, intrench-
ments.
But the Statesman's whole course
in the discussion has been distin-
guished by degree of eccentricity
that has attracted the attention of,
and provoked comment from more
than one of its readers in this place.
In the beginning it said a 40 per
cent tariff rate was not enough to
keep our wooden mills running, but
little over 40 per cent tit refused
to say bow much over sufficed, and
even allowed a margin of profit to
manufacturers but it was absurd to
suppose the manufacturers profits
are swelled by the amount of the
tariff. These statements being true
makes it clear to the most ordinary
understanding that there must be
somewhere a ratio of increase of
the manufacturers profits and the
rate of tariff. Otherwise there is
no basis for levying tariff and the
rate necessary must be guessed at.
Turning to the last argument of
the Statesman, that, eff the manu-
facturer cannot run his mills, the
workmen cannot draw wages from
them," we have but to say it hap
pens that manufacturer have run
their mills in this country, under
low tariff, and with less than halt
the advantages they now possess,
and made it profitable after paying
their help fully as much in proper
ton to the cost of living as they do
now, and more in proportion to the
earning capacity Of their help.
The reasons why the salt trust
can live in "free trade England"
are twofold. One is because Eng
land is monarchial country, land
of special privileges; and the other
is that it is not an importer but the
greatest exporter of salt in the
world. Were she driven to the
necessity of importing salt, the vast
wealth of the trust might still sus-
tain it, but nothing else could. So
with the American oil and beef
trusts. Both are immensely wealthy,
and we are the sole exporters Of
Importance of the articles in which
they deal. Nevertheless, these mon
ster organizations are not without
protection. They are permitted to
import tin, Of which they use large
quantities, free of duty, which is
both an important item to them
and an advantage over poor men
who might wish to attempt to COM
pete with them. It is, moreover,
contradiction of the false assertion
that the tariff is not tax. But the
further fact that no duty is imposed
on petroleum or beef does not mil
itate against our statement that
trusts cannot exist apart from
tariffs. As general fact the state
ment is true. The purpose of a trust
is to kill off competition, which
can be done by stupendous aggrega-
tons Of capital in lines in which We
are not importers, but these aggre-
cations of capital are not 80 readily
brought about as legislation forbid
ding competition from abroad, nor
vet so effective in their operations,