Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1901-10-05

consressmen continue to come In in
response to the American Economists
inquiry about tariff revision. Mr.. Bar
ham of California discusses the ques-
ton in particular as related to trusts.
He exposes the insincere character of
the democratic antitrust war cry by
pitting practice against profession, and
to the puzzled and patriotic citizen
anxious to do away with monopoly Mr..
Barham points the way to proceed:
Congressman Barham-
Editor American Economist: Califor-
mia is practically unanimous for the
present protective policy as contained
in the Dingley tariff. Some one over
anxious to promote or advance his per-
sonal political ambition may suggest a
modification or recast1ng OF the Ding
ley tariff. Such excess of ambition
will probably rebound so as to poster
him in the future and remove him
from the political horizon altogether.
A republican of ordinary intelligence
could not, in my judgment, cohsc. en-
tiously advocate revision of the pres
ent tariff.
''It may be thought popular to go to
any extent in agitating the question of
trusts and that the people can be
m1SI0O INTO the Del1eI CQdI ITuSlS Call
be destroyed by removing the tariff
from the output of trusts. Anyone
who SO believes is misleading himself.
Every one who has given attention to
this question knows perfectly well that
trusts do not come from, or grow out
of, the protective tariff system. The
people are quite we'll informed upon
this subject, and he who thinks differ
emily will find himself, where he ought
to be, in the dust of the procession of
progress and prosperity. The revision
of the tariff means loss of confidence
loss of confidence means closing down
of industries and preventing the up
building of new ones, lower wages,
want, poverty. The wage-earner and
capitalist know this full well. There
Is no danger of revision. Labor will
not tamely submit to be returned to
the condition in which it was SO re-
Gently; neither will capital be COM
PEELED to go out of business by rank
demagoguery.
1T is an assured fact, also, that too
much reciprocity will not meet favor
able consideration. The numberless
reciprocal treaties proposed by Mr..
Kasson are clear proof of his entire
want of proper information on indus
trial conditions. Some of his miscon-
ceived ideas would have worked great
injury had the senate ratified his pro-
posed treaties. While the doctrine of
reciprocity is the true one, yet it must
not be misapplied.
IF the word trust is used in the
sense of monopoly, then every trust
now in existence can, by proper pro-
cedure in the courts, be destroyed. No
60. Tod
under patent rights secured by the
constitution, can exist under our laws.
The common law established the in
validity of monopolies over four hun-
bred years ago in England, and that
rule has come down to US and exists
In every state in the Union; and the
Sherman law of 1890 covers the Ques-
ton in so far as the power of congress
goes. No monopoly, with the excep-
ton above mentioned, can or has a
legal existence in the United States or
IN any state in the Union. The
courts have so held whenever and
wherever the question has arisen. To
destroy a monopoly the machinery of
the courts need only to be put in mo-
ton. This every lawyer within the
corporate limits of the Union knows.
Further. every law upon the statute
books of the United States against
combines, trusts and monopolies has
been put there by a republican con-
gress and signed by a republican presi-
dent.
Although the Sherman law was
passed in 1890 by a republican con-
gress and signed by a republican pres
ident, the democratic party, in its plat
form of 1892, promised to destroy
trusts If put into power. Unfortu-
nately for the country, that party was
put into full power. They Lad the
house, senate and president. What
was done? Eleven bills against trusts
were introduced into the house and
senate, and six of these went to the
committee on ways and means. Mr..
Bryan was in the house and was a
member of that committee What be-
came of all these bills? Nothing They
were never reported out of the COM
mittee. Why not? Why were trusts
not crushed? They had Iul power to
pass any constitutional law. If the
Sherman law was not complete, why
not correct it? Why not mae it COM
plete? Was one of these bills Gntro-
duced for publication only ever re-
ported out of q committee and voted
on? No. The records of the Fifty
third congress show all these facts
What demagogueryi Congress ex-
hausted its power over the subject in
the Sherman act. President Cleye-