The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-09-22

1.-THE rich man who does not see that
this is in his interest is indeed short |
sighted When we make him obey the law
we insure for him the absolute protection
of the law. The savings banks show
what can be done In the way Of genuine
beneticent work by large corporations
when intelligently administered and super
vised. They now hold over $4,000, 900, 200
of interest or profit to their depositors.
There is no talk of danger from these cor
porations; yet they possess great power,
holding over three times the amount or
our present national debt; more than all
the currency, gold, silver. greenbacks, ETC.,
in circulation in the United States
The chief reason for there being no
talk Of dangers from them is that they
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
certain needful regulations with which,
they have to comply, while at the same
time giving full scope for the best enter
prise of their managers within these linn
its.
Loose talk about destroying monopoly
out OF hand without a hint as to how the
monopoly should even be defined offers
case in point. Nor can we afford to toll
crate any proposal which will strike at
the so-caled trusts only by striking at the
general we'll being.
1--WE are now enjoying period Of great
prosperity. This prosperity is generally
diffused through all sections and through
all classes. Doubtless there are some in
dividuals who do not get enough Of it,
and there are others who get too much.
The men who propose to get rid Of the
evils Of the trusts by measures which will
do away with this general well-being ad-
vocate a policy which would not only
be a damage to the community as whole,
but which would defeat its own professed
object.
Where the Tariff Comes In.
IF we are forced to the alternative of
| choosing a system under which most of
| us prosper too much or else a system
| under which no one prospers enough why
| Of course, we will choose the former
III the policy advocated Is SO revolution
| airy and destructive as to involve the
| whole community in the crash Of common
| disaster, 1T is as certain as anything can
| be that when the disaster has occurred all
efforts to regulate the trusts will cease.
and that the one aim will be to resto re
prosperity.
! "A remedy much advocated at the mo-
| ment is to take off the tariff from all
| articles which are made by trusts To do
| th1s IL Will be necessary first to define
| trusts. Inc language commonly used bv
| the advocates of~the method implies tina t
| theE mean all articles made by large cor
poratlons, and that the changes in tariff
are to be made with punitive intent to-
ward these large corporations Of course,
II the tariff is to be changed in order to
PUNISH them it should be changed SO as
TO punish those that do ILL., not merely
those that are prosperous It would vel
ther be Just nor expedient to punish the
Gig corporations as big corporations; what
we wish to do is to protect the people from
any evil that may grow out of their exist
ence or ton.
- IN any case the tariff is found tc
foster monopoly which does i'll, whv o1
course no protectionist would object to :
modltlcatiOn of the tariff sufficient r.
remedy the evil. But in very few case,
does the so-called trust really monono1ize
the market
rake any very big corporation which
controls say something over half the prod
ucts or given industry. Surely in re-
arranging the schedules affecting such :
Dig corporation it would be necessary
10 consider the interests of it's smaller
competitors which control the remainin.
part ana which,, being weaker, would sui
Ter most from any tariff resigned to punish
all the producers; for, of course, the tariff
,.IIS De MADE light or heavy for big anc
little producers alike.
moreover such corporation necessar
lily employs very many thousands of work
men, and the minute we proceed from
remuneration to action it would be neces
sary to consider the interests of the work
men. NJ
Furthermore, the products Of so man,
trusts are unprotected and would be en-
.ney uilaHected by any change in tn
tarHI, or at most very slightly so. TIL
Standard Oil company offers a case j,
point; and the corporations which contro
the anthracite coal output offer another
Tor there Is no duty whatever on anthra
cite COAL "
l am not discussing the question of tn
'arlli as such. whether from the standpoin
OF the fundamental difference between
those who believe in a protective tarif
ana those who believe in free trade o
from the standpoint of those who. Will
they believe in a protective tariff. fee
that there could be rearrangement O
our schedules. either by direct Legislation
or by reciprocity treaties which wo,,l
result In charging our markets; nor We
from the standpoint Of those who feel tina
stability Of economic policy is at tn
moment our prime economic need; an
that the benefits to be derived from an
change in schedules would not compensat
for the damage to bushes caused by tn
widespread agitation which would folio,
any attempted general revision of tn
tariff at this moment.
without regard to the wisdom of an
of these three positions, it remains tru
that the real evils connected with tn
trusts cannot be remedied by any chang
in the tariff laws.
The trusts can be damaged by depriv
ing them Of the benefits of a protectiv
tariff only on condition of damaging a
their small competitors, and all the wag
workers employed in the industry. TIL
point is very important, and it is desirab
to avoid any save wilful misunderstanding,
| am not now considering whether or no
on grounds totally unconnected with tt
trusts, it would be well to lower the dutie
on various schedules, either by dire.
legislation or by treaties designed to 81
cure as an offset reciprocal advantag,
from the nations with which tariff won
have little appreciate effect on the trus
save as they shared in the general har
or good proceeding from such changes
mo tariff change would help one of O,
small corporations or one of our priva
individuals in business, stillsless one of O.
wage workers, as against large corpor
ton in the same business; on the contrar