The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-09-23

ton of corporations of all kinds, will
in the end cure themselves. But others
will remain that can be cured if we only
set about curing them with sanity. Cor
porations that are handled honestly and
fairly so far from being an evil, are q
natural business evolution and make for
the general prosperity of our land. We
do not wish to destroy corporations. We
wish to make them subserve the public
good. The savings banks show what can
be done IN the way of genuinely bene-
ficent work by large corporations when
intelligently administered and super
vised. They now hold over twentw-siX
hundred millions of the peoples money
and pay annually about one hundred mill
lions of interest or profit to their de-
positors. There is no talk of danger from
these corporations: yet they possess
great power, holding over three times the
amount of our present national debt.
The chief reason for there being no talk
of danger from them is that they are
on the whole faithfully administered for
the benefit of all, under wise laws which
require frequent and full publication of
their condition, and which prescribe GER
tain regulations with which they have to
comply while at the same time giving
full scope for the best enterprise OF
their managers within these limits
Now, of course, savings banks are
not as highly specialized as a class OF
corporations as railroads and we cannot
force far the analogy with the other
corporations, but there are certain con-
d1tions which l think we can lay down
as Indispensable TO the proper treatment
of all corporations which from their size
have become important factors in the
social development of the community.
Before speaking, however, of what
can be done by way of remedy, let me
say a word or two as to ceItain proposed
remedies. which in my judgment would
be ineffective or mischievous.
THE TARIFF AND, TRUSTS.
"a remedy much advocated at the mo-
ment is to take off the tariff from all
articles which are made by trusts. To
do this it will be necessary first to de-
fine trusts. The language commonly
used by the advocates of the method i'm
plies that they mean all articles made
by large corporations, and that the
changes in tariff are to be made with
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%well and others do i'll. If in
any case the tariff is found to foster
monopoly which does i'll, why of course,
no protectionst would object to modi
ficatioG 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 its
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
the tariff must be made light or
heavy for big and little producers alike.
such a corporation necessarily
employs very many thousands of work
men, and the minute we proceeded from
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 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. l am not discussing
the question of the tariff as such, wheth-
err 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 pro-
tective tariff, feel that there could be a
re- arrangement of our schedules, either
by direct legislation or by reciprocity
treaties which would result in enlarging
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 of the benefits of protective tariff,
only on condition of damaging all their