St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-03-14
TRIUMPHANT TRUSTS.

The more Democrat examines the
amended schedules of the senate tariff
bill, the greater is the discouragement
and humiliation. 1t is revelation of
the power of these great combinations
of capital, passing under the general
mamie of trusts. that strikes Democrats
like blow III the face. We could I'M
derStand their domination in Repub-
licah congresses. because they were SO
naturally a fruit of the policy of that
party, but that they should be also able
to reach into the party which denounces
them and the policy under which they
were generated. and control the action
of those to whom we had given charge
of our declared policy, sickens the heart
and slr0uds il in chagrn.
One of these instances is the treat
meht accorded what is known as the
sole leather trust, and whose legal title
is the United States Leather company.
Readers will perhaps recall the news
items which, over year ago, men-
toned the formation of this trust, which
aimed to secure control of all the tan
nerles of the country, and also to reach
out and bring under its power all the
supplies of oak and hemlock bark in
the country. The election of '92 SCENE i
to Indicate change unfavOrable to the
trusts. and, Ill the silence which fol-
lowed as to the result of the organiza-
ton of this trust, we supposed that it
had taken the hint dropped at the polls
and retired its schemes.
Nd -
ceeded with the work to its cousumma-
ton. Now in the tariff bill it makes its
first public appearance, and shows that
ii is not only alive, but very much so.
1t was able to convince the ways and
means committee of the house that 1t
needed some propping up against for
eIgn competition, and that body gave 1t
5 per cent tax on imports. Success
there only stimulated it to renewed eff
forts in the senate finance committee,
and that body complacently doubled the
protection accorded it by the house,
making the tax 10 per cent.
Under the act of 'S3 the tax was Is
per cent. This the Mckinley act re-
duced to 10 per cent. The raw material,
hides, were and are on the free list. The
Imports of sole leather are insiguiii-
can't and exceptional. In 1899 the i'm
ports were valued at Sic, 119; in 1891,
$40, 600; in '92. S25 900. and in 1913, $50, 1924.
The tax of 15 and 10 per cent OH these
has yielded but from $4,000 to $1,000 of
revenue. This small tax was sufficient
to practically prohibit imports, showing
that our tanners were able to produce
the leather needed here at prices which
would not make imports profitable at
1Oper cent tax increase of values.
But when we turn to the tables Of eX-
ports we find that before the days of
organized capital, or trusts. the tanners
were not only supplying the home mar
ket, but were sending their sole leather
into foreign markets. For the twenty
years covered by the treasury report,
they have sent abroad q Quantities vary.
ing from 100000 pounds III 1878 to
39,595,000 pounds in 1899. and to over 3d.
100000 pounds i'll 1898. Two-thirds of all
this went to the United Kingdom. but
all the other nations Of Europe received
some. These returns concIusively DEM
onstrate that imports of sole leather are
not matter of revenue worth consider
ing; that it might as we'll be on the free
list. and that a tax of 10 per cent is
sheer gratuity to the trust, enabling it
to hold the home market in its grasp,
and to eXtort from the users of leather
the entire amount which the tariff and
freight charges enable them to get.
These figures would be convincing il
used as an argument against Republi-
can protection; they are rank with bit
ternesS when used TO show the treachery
of Democratic senators m thpir partv