The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-09-23

plies that they mean all articles made
by large corporations, and that the
changes in tariff are to be made viii
punitive intent toward these large cor
porations. OF course, if the tariff is to
be changed in order to punish them. it
should be changed so as to punish those
that do i'll. not merely those that are
prosperous. 1t would neither be just nor
expedient to punish the big corporations
as being corporations; what We wish to
do is to protect the people from any evil
that may grow out Of their existence or
maladministration. Some of those cor
porations do we'll and others do i'll. If in
any case the tariff is found to foster a
monopoly which does i'll, why of course,
no protectioniSt would object to a modi-
~fication of the tariff sufficient to remedy
the evil. But in very few cases does the
so-called trust really mOnopOliZe the
market. Take any very big corporation
which controls, say something over half
the PRODUCTS of a given industry. Surely
in re-arranging the schedules affecting
| such a big corporation, it would be neces-
sary to consider the interests Of it's
smaller competitors, which control the
remaining part, and which being weaker
| would suffer most from any tariff de-
signed to punish all the producers; for of
| COURSE, the tdElu MuSl Ue llSIL . L
heavy for big and little producers alike.
Moreover, such a corporation necessarily
employs very many thousands of work
| men, and the minute we proceeded from
denunciation to action it would be neces-
sary to consider the interests of these
workmen. Furthermore, the products of
many trusts are unprotected and would
be entirely unaffected by any change in
the tariff, or at most very slightly SO.
The Standard Oil Company offers a case
in point; and the corporations which con-
troll the anthracite coal output offer
another-for there is no duty whatever
on anthracite coal. | am not discussing
the question of the tariff as such, wheth-
er from the standpoint of the fundamen-
tai difference between those who believe
in a protective tariff and those who be-
lieve in free trade or from the standpoint
of those who, while they believe in a pro-
t~ective tariff, feel that there could be a
Encouragement of our schedules, either
by direct legislation or by reciprocity
treaties which would result in charging
our markets.: nor vet from the stand
point of those who feel that steadiness
of economic policy is at the moment our
prime economic need, and the benefits to
be derived from any change in schedules
would not compensate for the damage to
business caused by the Widespread agi-
%tation, which would follow any attempt
ed general revision of the tariff at this
moment. Without regard to the wisdom
of any of those three positions, it re-
mains true that the real evils connected
with the trusts cannot be remedied by
any change in the tariff laws. The
trusts can be damaged by depriving
them CT the benefits Of a protective tariff.
only on condition Of damaging all their
smaller competitors and all the wage
workers employed in the industry. This
point is very important. and it is de-
sirable to avoid any save Wilful mis-
understanding. l am not now consider
ing whether or not on grounds totally
unconnected with the trusts, it would be
we'll to lower the duties on various
schedules, either by direct legislation. or
by indirect legislation, or by treaties de-
signed to secure as an effect reciprocal
advantages from the nations with which
we trade. My point is that changes in
the tariff would have little appreciable
effect on the trusts save as they shared
in the general harm or good proceeding
from some changes. No tariff change
would help one of our smaller corpora
tons, or one of our private individuals
in business. still less one of our wage
w Vi htIS, dS against Il large corporation
in the same business; on the contrary, if
it bore heavily on the large corporation.
it would inevitably be felt still more by
that corporations weaker rivals, while
any Injurious result would of necessity.
be shared by both the employer and en-
ployed in the business concerned. The
immediate Introduction of substantial
free trade in all articles manufactured by
trusts, that is by the largest and most
successful corporation, would not affect
some OF the most powerful of our bust
ness combinations in the least, save by
the damage done to the general business
welfare Of the country: others would un-
doubtedly be seriously affected, but much
less so than their weaker rivals. while
the loss would be divided between the
capitalists and the laborers. and after
the years of panic and distress had been
lived through, and some return to pros
perity had occurred, even though all We're
on a lower plane of prosperity than be-
fore, the relative difference between the
trusts and their rivals would remain as
marked as ever. In other words. the
trust, or big corporation, would have
suffered relatively too, and in the in
terest OF, its foreign competitors: but its
relative position towards it's American
competitors would probably be improved.
little would have been lone toward cut-
ting out or minimizing the evils in the
trusts; nothing towards securing adequate
trade and regulation of the modern cor
poratlOnS. In other words the question
Oh regulating the trusts with a view tn
minimizing or abolishing the evils extant
III them, is separate and apart from the
question of tariff revision.
THE REMEDY HE PROPOSES
i, personally, feel that ultimately tho
nation W.ll have to assume the resnon-
slolllty OF regulating these very large
corporations, which do an Interstate
business.
The States must combine to meet tbe
great combinations of capital; and the
easiest way for the States to combine
Is by action through the national gov
eminent. | am we'll aware that the pro.
cess of constitutional amendment is no