, 1899-11-02
DANGEROUSREMEDY
TARIFF REPEAL IN DEALING
WITH TRUSTS.
To Remove Protection Would Either BE
Intellectual and Worthless, or Else It
Would Prove Destructive to Our In
dustriai system.

To the questions, Is the Customs
Tarih the mother of trusts, as was as
serted by Mr.. Havemeyer? and Would
the repeal of protective duties on arti-
cies controlled by trusts render the
success Of trusts impossible in this
country? one of the most thoughtful
anBwers yet given by any of our pub
Tic men is that Of Representative
Iawney 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 Dingley was chairman, and
which formulated n framed the
Dingley tariff law, is a man who
evidently thinks before talking. In
this respect he differs quite radically
from certain other Minnesota takers
and writers, who are strenuous adyc-
Gates of the repeal of protective duties
as a means of smashing the trusts. Ex-
statesmen who never had any reputa-
uon for brains and editors more or
less influenced by commercial consid-
erations take a flying jump and 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 all 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 1t is not. Briefly stated,
mis- presentment OF the proposition is
this: The repeal of the protective tar
In as a means of smashing the trusts
would be either absolutely worthless
or else absolutely destructive. II, as is
claimed by all free-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.
II, 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 I'M
doubtedly smashing the trusts, at the
same time smash our vast industrial
system. and by SO doing would drive
domestic production out of the field
and leave our consumers wholly at the
mercy OF foreign trusts not amenable
to regulation n 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
traders and mugwumps; but would
it prove acceptable to the country as
a whole? Half-hearted protectiopisr
writers and ex-statesmen who think
they think would do well to follow
representative Tawney's example, and
give this question serious considera-
ton before they become so cocksure of
having solved the trust problem by the
abandonment of protection.