The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1899-10-27
MIR. WASHBURN
DEFINES TRUSTS.
An Emphatic Warming From a
Well Known Republican.
PROSPERITY is FICTITIOUS
when Founded on the Progress of Trusts
and Combinations some Telling
Points From Man who
Has studied.

Points From Man who
Has studied.
st. Paul, Mimi, Oct. 22.--"No, most
decidedly do not agree with Mr.. Hanna
on his proposition that the formation
Of combines of capital must rebound
to the benefit of labor" said former
United States Senator w. ID. WASH
burn when asked to express himself
today on the attitude taken by the
Republican boss of Ohio in recent
interview. Senator Washburn was not
as ready to talk on the trust question
as he was at the time of his return
from Europe six weeks ago, and 1t y es
evident that he had been labored WITH
by some of his party associates. He
said that he felt keenly the comments
Of the Republican press on his position
and gave 1t out cold that he was be-
ing misrepresented by many Of the
organs of that party, who are laboring
in the interests of the trusts While he
has frequently been the object of a
good deal Of newspaper criticism hither-
to he has never been attacked quite
so generally by the press of his own
party as he has been since he announc-
ed himself as opposed to trusts as a
matter of party doctrine.
WARMED UP TO 1T.
He was rather charry of opening up
the subject again when approached, and
said he had nothing further to say.
Then he said great deal.
"Then you believe that Senator Han
ma is wrong"
HE certainly is wrong, and / do not
believe that he speaks by the card, or
for the Republican party. There Is
nothing compatible in his position Of
standing for the protection of the
American laboring man and for the
organization of capital for the purpose
Of controlling great industries"
Hanna points to what he terms the
present prosperous condition of as the
result of trade combinations was sug-
gested.
THEN THAT PROSPERITY is
FICTITIOUS. IF 1T EXISTS 1T CAM
NOT CONTINUE. WHY, THE PROP
OSITION IS ABSURD. TRUSTS ARE
NOT FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF HELPING THE LABORER, BUT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING
LARGER PROFITS OUT OF INVEST
MENT.
Larger profits may be had most
readily by controlling production, by re-
aucing the cost of products, not neces-
sarily by increasing the price of the
manufactured article.
A PLAIN PROPOSITION.
"It is the boast of the advocates of the
trusts that the price of their products
is reduced to the consumer. That les
sening of price can only be brought
about, if the profit Is at the same time
to be increased, by lowering the charges
for turning the raw material into the
manufactured article and putting that
article into the hands of the consumer.
When trust gets control of a certain
line of manufactures competition dis
appears, and just enough of the manu-
factured article is turned out to sup-
ply the demand. There is no excess on
the market. If the means of manufac-
ture exceed the necessary limit, the
mills are shut down and men thrown
out of employment. 1t may be that
those who remain employed receive the
old wage for the purpose of making a
good appearance; those still remaining
employed may even be given slightly
higher wages. But the result is a
lessening of the amount paid in the
total for the production of the article
or commodity. Labor receives less Of
the total value of the product. 1t is
impossible that labor should be bene-
nted. On the contrary the very purpose
of the trust is to take to itself some
portion of the amount paid for labor.
TARIFF AND TRUSTS.
The senator stopped for a moment,
tapped his desk nervously and said
with some show Of animation:
"I do not see why Senator Hanna
should insist on coupling the necessity
for protection and the growth of trusts.
For myself, / believe that the law of
protection, of which 1 always have
been and am now an ardent advocate,
should be used for the purpose of curb
ing the trusts. Possible combination
of capital was not contemplated by the
men who framed the protection laws.
If protection has made trusts possible
then believe protection should be with
drawn from the industries into which
the trusts have entered. But the
principle of protection is right. 1t is
so far right that it may be invoked
to destroy the trusts, which 1t has
possibly created. The steel trust, you
say? Yes. the steel combination is
a direct result of protection and the
industry no longer needs protection.
The protection was extended to the in
dustry when it was really in the in
fant class. 1t was struggling in vain
effort to compete with foreign products
In a very few years, under protection,
the various steel industries, the manu-
facture of steel rails, for instance, has
so developed that we can now under
sell the world If necessary in foreign
markets, there has been such an
enormous enhancement in the profits
OF steel manufactures that the industry
is strong enough to stand alone and pro-
lection should be withdrawn at once
in order that the whole world may en-
ter into the market and remove the pos
sibility of American combinations"
FOR THE WEAK.
Protection is for the weak, not for
the strong. 1t would be fare, humane
proper to protect the infant In its
mothers arms, but no one wants to go
to the extent of protecting the brawling
giant who gees about preying on his
neighbors. Here is the theory that
should be applied to the trusts