Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-05
To the Editor of the Journal:

To the Editor of the Journal:
MIR. Havemeyer's testimony before
the Industrial Commission has eXciSd
much comment, due in part to his
prominence in business and financial cir
Giles, in part to the fact that he is him
SELF ut the head of great trust and
in part to the arguments submitted by
him. He declares that the tariff is the
mother of the trusts. The same thing
has been said great many times be-
fore by great many people, but the
reading public is just now engaged in
considering the subject Of trusts, and
such statement at this time from such
man challenges attention. Republic
cans accuse him of having n grievance.
Whether the Sugar Trust has receiv-
ed it's share of the favors bestowed by
the Mckinley act and the Dlngley act
is matter of little concern to the pub
lie. but whether Mr.. Havemeyer's views
arc correct is Il question of great mo-
ment.
When tariff reforms have pointed to
high tariff law as II barrier against
outside competition and n burden to
home consumers. protectionists have
invariably responded that competition
ut home would reduce the price OF the
protected article to the point where the
manufacturer would only receive Il
reasonable return upon his investment.
What will the protectionists say now
when the manufacturers openly COM
bine to destroy competitor and secure
all that the law will permit? Accord
ing to the theory of protectionists the
tariff should be exactly equal to the
difference between the cost of produce
ton in the United States and the cost
of production abroad. No tariff can be
defended according To this theory un-
less 1t is actually added to the price
OF the home product. because If 1t is
not added IL Is not needed
A tariff that is not used by the man
ufacturers Is constant temptation to
them. and presents an ever present in
vltation to combination. To advocate
tariff on the ground that it is needed,
and then punish those who unite to
take advantage of it is superlative abb
surdity.
FREE TRADE. a PARTIAL REMEDY
Some have suggested the free list as
ureall remedy for the trusts. There
is no doubt that the removal of the
tariff from trust-made article would
reduce the eXtortion. but would it nee
cssarly destroy the trust? IT, for in
stance, steel rails can he sold for Sl5
per ton in both Europe and the United
states, a tariff OF 50 per ton would ena-
Bile the domestic manufacturers to form
combination and raise the price Of
steel rails in thc-tfsttet tees-to $2i
per ION. "A INV. putting steer THIS upon
the free list would prevent the eXtor-
ton. but II steel rails can be produced
In the United States as cheaply as else
where, Steel Rail Trust could be
formed without the aid of any tariff
wall, and trust organized under those
conditions would be able To control the
price Of the product as well as fix the
rate of wages and the price of raw ma
terial.
Whenever an article can De exported
in competition with foregn products
trust formed in that ar.lula can col
lect from the consumer :he forelgn
price plus the cost Of interpretation,
and we are yearly increasing orr cx-
port OF manufactured products. il is ev-
ident that we are constantly adding
TO the number Of articles which trusts
could control without the air Of import
duties.
Tariff reform. therefore. or even free
trade. would be only Il partial remedy.
TO advance this as the only remedy or
as n complete remedy would not only
prove disappointment to the oppo-
ncntS of monopoly, but il would pro-
badly rally the protectionists To the
support of the trusts.
EXtortion is. however only one of the
evils flowing from monopoly: there are
other evils which though less notice.
able. are not less dangerous To our
country. Alr. Havemeyer's broad de-
fence Of trust principles is therefore de-
serving of as much attention as his
condemnation of Il high tariff. After
pointing out the advantage which the
trusts derive from high tariff laws he
warns the public against antitrust
legislation He says: Prestige, abil-
ity experience ana wealth win in the
long run, and trusts are an example OF
the survival of the tttest in business"
lie argues that trusts exist because
they deseve 10 exist, and hc seems to
consider wealth entitled to all that it
con secure, no matter what the means
employed. The ''let-alone policy" now
advocated by trust maGnates has al
ways been popular with the strong
The giant does not need any protection
from the dwarf. and naturally resents
the interference of government when a
law is passed prohibiting larceny, as
sault or murder.
SO some of the great corporations to-
day resent any attempt upon the part
of the government to protect smaller
corporations and private individuals
from trust methods, but the physical
giant has more right to complain of in
reference than the corporations. be-
cause the giant Is under TO obligation
to the dwarf for superior strength,
while the corporation derives its privi-