Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1899-10-06
THE VENEZUELA AWARD

Is 10 be recorded in the conclusion of
the work of the arbitration court in
Paris by which the contention over
territory between Great Britain and
Venezuela has been adjusted. Al
though England was awarded the larg
er share of the territory by the unani-
nous decision of the court, and the
award appears to be satisfactory to
that country, Venezuela is given the
mouth of the Orilioco river and she
saves Parma point, the boundary line
starting about thirty-fve miles cas-,
thereof, thus preserving for the South.
American republic the mouth OF the
river, besides a large tract of country
within the Schomburgk line, which
England absolutely claimed and had
refused for years 10 arbitrate on. The
territory awarded TO Venezuela aggre-
gates 10000 square miles Great Brit
tain is accorded equality in navigating
the rivers, and is given some other adj
vantages as partial compensation.
England undoubtedly gets more than
she was expected to get a few days ago.
according to advice Prom Paris.
Ex-President Benjamin Harrison,
representing Venezuela before the
court, although somewhat disappointed
in the award, takes cheerful view and
says it might have been worse.
b
one Of the great features is the signal
triumph of the United States in bring
ing about an arbitration of the dispute.
for it is due to our nation that war was
averted and a peaceful solution of the
vexatious difficulty reached
DOES THE, TARIFF FOSTER
TRUSTS?
A sentiment is being fostered to The
effect that the protective tariff sustains
certain trusts. 10 the questions, is the
customs tariff the mother of trusts? and
would the repeal of protective duties on
articles controlled by trusts render the
success Of trusts Impossible in this
country? ore Of the most thoughtful
answers yet given by any of our public
men is that of Congressman Tawney. OF
Minnesota. AT least this is the verdict
of the American Economist which
makes an especial study OF this ques-
ton. Mr.. Tawney, a conspicuous
member of the house committee or
ways and means. of which the late
Nelson Dinghy was chairman, an(
which formulated and framed thf
Dingley tariff tariff aw, is vel quail
fed to speak upon this subject
Briefly stated, his presentnent Of thu
proposition IS this: The repeal Of III,
protective tariff as a means of smash
ing the trusts would be either absolute
ly worthless or else absolutely destruc
tive. If. as IS claimed by all free trad
ers, by all nugwumps and by a few
wabbling protectionists, the protectiNt
policy has outlived its usefulness in tn.
United States, and is no longer neeessa
ry in order to enable our domestic in
dustries TO compete with foreign pro
duction, then, as MIR, Tawney elearl,
points out, the repeal of protective du
ties would accomplish nothing in re
straint or control Of trusts. II woul
be worthless remedy for the trust
would continue the even tenor of thet
way Just as though nothing had hap
pened
If, on the contrary, protection is es
sential as means of assuring the pos
session of the great home market to tn
domestic producer. then the removal q
protection would, While undoubtedl
smashing the trusts, at the same tim
smash our vast Industrial system, an
by so doing would drive domestic pre-
duction out of the field and leave ou
consumers Wholly at the mercy of fol
eign trusts not amenable to regulatio
and control through the operation (
our domestic laws.
Commenting on his statement of til
case the Economist says:
such is the alternative. Either pr,
lection is or is not needed. Either tt
trusts of the United States could g
along equally well without it. or else i
repeal would wreck the domestic trus
and also wreck domestic industrie
This is a contamination which migl
prove acceptable to free traders ar
mugwumps, but would it prove accep
able to the country as a whole? Hal
hearted protectionist writers and e,
statesmen who think they think wou
do well to follow Representative Tay
ney's example, and give this questic
serious consideration before they b