The McCook tribune. (McCook, Neb.) 1886-1936, 1899-11-03
ADANGEROUSREMEDY
TARIFF REPEAL IN DEALING
WITH TRUSTS.
To Remov Protection Would Either BE
Intellectual and Worthless, or Else 1t
Would Prove Destructive to Our In
dustriai System.

To the questions, Is the Customs
Tariff the mother of trusts, as was as
serted by Mr.. Hayemeyer? and Would
the repeal of protective duties on arti-
cies controlled by trusts render the
success Of trusts impossible in this
country? n of the most thoughtful
answers yet given by any of our pub
lie men is that of Representative
Tawney Of Minnesota, which is printed
in the current issue of the American
Economist. Mr.. Tawney, a %conspicu-
Gus member of the house committee
on ways and means, of which the late
Nelson Dlngley was chairman, and
which formulated and framed the
Dingley tariff law, is a mar who
evidently thinks before talking. In
this respect he differs quite radically
from certain other Minnesota takers
n writer's, who are strenuous adyo-
Gates of the repeal of protective duties
as a means Of smashing the trusts. Elk
statesmen who never had any reputa-
ton for brains and editors more or
less influenced by commercial consid-
erations take a flying jump ard LAND
squarely upon the conclusion that by
the removal OF protection the trust
problem is at once solved. To jump at
a conclusion is the easiest Of ali ways
out of a perpleXing dilemma. 1t re-
quires little thought and less knowl-
edge.
But is the trust question so easily
settled as all this? Representative
TaWney thinks it is not. Briefly stated,
his presentment Of the proposition is
this: The repeal of the protective tar
if as a means of smashing the trusts
would be either absolutely worthless
or else absolutely destructive. If, as is
claimed by all f~ree-traders, by all
mugWumps, and by a few wabbling
protectionists, the protective policy
has outlived its usefulness in the
United States, and is no longer neces-
sary in order to enable our domestic
industries to compete with foreign
production, then, as Mr.. Tawney clear
ly points out, the repeal of protective
duties would accomplish nothing in re-
straint or control of trusts. 1t would
be a worthless remedy, for the trusts
would continue the even tenor of their
way, just as though nothing had hap
pened.
If, on the contrary, protection is es-
sential as a means OF assuring the pos
session of the great home market to
the domestic producer, then the re-
moval of protection would, while IN
doubtedly smashing the trusts, at the
same time smash our vast industrial
system, and by so doing would drive
domestic production cut of the field
and leave our consumers wholly at the
mercy of foreign trusts not amenabla
to regulation and control through the
operation Of our domestic laws.
Such is the alternative. Either pro-
lection is or is not needed. Either the
trusts of the United States could get
along equally well without it, or else
its repeal would wreck the domestic
trusts and also wreck domestic in
dustries. This is a contamination
which might prove acceptable to free
and mugwumps; but would
it prove acceptable to the country as
a whole? Half-hearted protectionist
writer's and ex-statesmen who think
think would do we'll to follow
representative Tawrey's example, and
give this question serious considera-
ton before they become SO cocksure Of
solved the trust problem by the
abandonment CT protection.