New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-25
pgOTECTiON AND MONOPULTES

Now TIE TRIBJSE abandon> Pro'rc'icn'
sundiy Democratic Journals dnnonn'c win i
prctcncc Of joy because TIE TRIh''NE has
said that there is reason f. doubt whether duties
should he maintained on refined sugar, cor iaGc
and Irvine. lead and some other products which
are monopolizcd by trusts. and that II might
be found wise to alb .li>h duties on such articles.
But would that be in any measure an abIn-
donmcnt Of the protective policy?
On the contrary, TIE TElM'NE has many
times insisted that every such combination Tor
the purpose Of monopolizing the production or
fixing the price Of any article is hostile to The
protective tariff. and ought 10 be treated aS an
enemy Of the National policy. The reason l.
so obvious that il cannot be mistaken. except
by those who are wilfuly blind 10 the pur-
poses and the merits Of the protective system.
The object Of Protection is to promote the
development Of domestic manufactures.
necessary consequence of that development l.
70 bring about sharper competition between
domestic manufacturers. All dcfcnccS Of the
protective policy are upon the ground that this
development Of home manufactures through
the competition between producers, must in
evitably secure cheaper goods FOR consumers.
Il may be broadly declared that the National
policy Of Protection. which is in It's nature Il
restriction Of foreign competition, would not
in any case be justified or upheld 10y ma
iority Of the people of this country were il
not believed that competition between hone
producers, encouraged by protective duties,
would secure reasonable prices Tor American
consumers.
Thus the freedom of home competition, for
the purpose Of securing the benefits of the
protective policy to the people who support it,,
becomes an essential part Of that policy. 1t
cannot be abandoned or neglected without en-
dangcring the National system itself. Any
combination for the purpose of restricting the
production or arifically enhancing the price
OF any product Of protected industry is Of
necessity hostile to the protective policy. 1t il
a more dangerous foe than any foreign manu-
facturer, or combination of foreign manulact-
urers The first and highest duty Of all sin
cere friends of Protection is to break up every
such device which seeks to defeat competition
between domestic producers. Further, it may
be broadly declared that the system of Pro-
lection would not itself be sustained by the
people were it not reasonably assumed that
home competition between the protected manu-
fscturers would be free, and would secure to
all the people the benefits which the protective
system is designed to secure.
1t is therefore grave question whether any
protective duty ought to be continued when
manufacturers who are defended by it against
foreign competition conspirc for the purpose
of limiting domestic production or fixing prices
for American consumers. This is not qucs-
ton to DO settled in all cases alike by any
Procrustean rule. because the welfare Of the
consumers is always first TO be considered.
In some cases it may be that the overthrow of
the domestic industry would burden them more
than they could be benefited by the destruc-