Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1902-10-02
ROOSEVELTS GREAT. SPEECH.

lALd II i. M LII
foster monopoly which does i'll, why, |
OF course, no protectionist would OBJ
ject to modification of the tariff suffi-
cient to remedy the evil. But in very
few cases does the so-called trust real |
ly monopolize the market. Take any
very big corporation which controls, |
say, something over half the products |
of given industry Surely in rear
ranging the schedules affecting such a
big corporation it would be necessary
to consider the interests of its smaller
competitors, which control the remain
ing part and which, being weaker,
would suffer most from any tariff de-
signed to punish all the producers,for
of course, the tariff must be made
light or heavy for big and little pro-
ducers alike.
Interests of the Workmen.
Moreover, such an organization ne
cessarily employs many thousands OF
workmen. and the minute we proceed
from denunciation to action it would
be necessary to consider the interests
of these workmen. Furthermore, the
products of many trusts are unprotect-
ed 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 control the an
thracite coal output offer another-for
there is no duty whatever on anthra--
| cite coal.
| 81 am not discussing the question of
| tariff as such, whether from the stand
point of the fundamental difference be-
tween those who believe in protec-
Itive tariff and those who believe in
| free trade; or from the standpoint of
! those who, while they believe in 4
protective tariff, feel that there could
be Encouragement of our schedules,
either by direct legislation or by re-
ciprocity treaties, which would result
in enlarging our markets; nor yet from
the standpoint of those who feel that
stability of economic policy is at the
moment our prime economic need, and
that the benefits to be. derived from
any change in schedules would not
compensate for the damage to busi--
ness caused by the widespread agita--
ton which would follow any attempt
ed general revision of the tariff at
\ this moment. Without regard to the
wisdom of any one of those three po--
sitions it remains true that the real
evils connected with the trusts cam
not be remedied by any change in the
tariff laws. The trusts can be damag-
ed by depriving them of the benefits
of a protective tariff, only on condi-
! tion of damaging all their smaller com
petitors and all the wage workers en-
!, ployed in the industry. This point is
very important, and it is desirable tc
avoid any save willful msunderstand-
ing.
: Not Dependent on Tariffs.
81 am not now considering whether
or not, on grounds totally unconnect-
ed with the trusts, it would be well tC
lower the duties on various schedules
either by direct legislation or by legis-
lation or treaties designed to secure as
i. an Offset reciprocal advantages from
the nations with which we trade. M.
, point is that changes in the tariff
would have little appreciable effect OF
+ the trusts save as they shared in the
general harm or good resulting from
f such changes. No tariff change woult
| help one of our smaller corporations
/ or one of our private individuals il
! business, still less one of our wag,
: workers, as against large corpora
} ton in the same business; on the con
l trary, if it bore heavily on the largt
corporation it would inevitably be fel
t still more by that corporations weak
; er rivals, while any injurious resul
4 would of necessity be shared by bot
t the employer and the employed in tn
J. the business concerned. The immedi
J, ate introduction of free trade in al
a the articles manufactured by trusts
J. that is, by the largest and most sue
cessful corporations, would not affeC
e some of the most powerful of our bus
l. ness combinations in the least, say
n by the damage done to the genera
e business welfare of the country; 9th
u ers would undoubtedly be seriousl
u affected, but much less so than thei
l. weaker rivals, while the loss would b
i divided between the capitalists an
the laborers."
a After the year of panic and distres
q. had been lived through, and some re
n turn to prosperity had occurred, eve
Al though all were on a lower plane {
d prosperity than before, the relativ
Al difference between the trusts and the
a
s. Ell. In other words, the trust, or bi
IL corporation, would have suffered rel
s. lively to, and in the interest of, it's TO
Is eign competitors; but its relative pc
,e siton toward it's American competitor
1T would probably be improved; lit
e would have been done toward cuttir
e, out or minimizing the evils in tt
n trusts. nothing toward securing AIDE
quate control and regulation of til
large modern corporations In otht
words, the question of regulating IL
Of trusts with a view to minimizing {
IS abolishing the evils existent in the
al is separate and apart from the ques
IN ton Of tariff revision.
IL Vindictiveness Cannot be Used.
It. f'You must face the fact that on
OF harm will come from proposition
st attack the so-called trusts in vindi
w tive spirit by measures conceived sol
s. ly with a desire of hurting thel
rs without any regard as to whether
Sc not discrimination should be made b.
eu tween the good and evil in them, al
as without ayen any regard aS tn what n