The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-09-21

outtly III ICdlIdIklIk II o.
fecting such big corporation it would be
necessary to consider the interests OF It's
smaller competitors, which control the re-
naming part, and which, being weaker,
would suffer most from any tariff designed
To punish all the producers: for. OF course,
the tariff must be made light or heavy for
big and little producers alike. Moreover,
such a corporation necessarily employs
very many thousands of workmen. and the
minute we proceeded from denunciation 10
action it would be necessary to consider the
interests or these workmen. furthermore,
the products of many trusts are unpro-
tected, and would be entirely unaffected by
any change In the tariff, or at most very
slightly so. The Standar Oil Company
offers a case In point, and the corporations
which control the anthracite coal output
offer another, for there is no duty whatever
on anthracite coal.
NOT A TARIFF QUESTION.
81 am not discussing the question of the
tariff as such. whether from the stand
point OF the fundamental difference between
those who believe in a protective tarin and
those who believe in free trade; or from the
standpoint Of those who, while they believe
In a protective tariff. feel that there could
be a Encouragement of our schedules. either
by direct legislation or by reciprocity
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 business
caused by the widespread agitation whlcn
would follow any attempte general re-
vision Of the tariff at this moment.
Without regard to the wisdom or any
one of those three positions it remains 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 a pro-
tective tariff. only on condition OF damasing
all their smaller competitors, and all tne
wage workers employed In the INDUSTRY.
This point Is very important and II Is de-
sirable to avoid any save willful misunoer-
standing.
II am not now considering whether or
not, on grounds totally unconnected with
the trusts, it would be we'll TO lower the
duties on various schedules, either py dl-
rect legislation or by legislation or treaties
designed to secure as an offset reciprocal
advantages from the nations with whlcn
we trade. My point is that changes IN the
tariff would have little appreciable enect
upon the trusts save as they shared In the
general harm or good proceeding from such
changes. No tariff change would help one
of our smaller corporations, or one or our
private individuals in business, still less
one of our wage-workers, as against a large
corporation I'm the same business. on the
contrary, II It bore heavily upon the large
corporation, 1t would inevitably be felt still
more by that corporations weaker rivals,
while any injurious result would of peces-
Slly De SldTeQ Dy DOln III ciupiOyCi dhO
employed in the business concerned.
EFFECT OF FREE TRADE.
The introduction of substantial free
trade in all articles manufactured by trusts.
that is, by the largest and most success
full corporations, would not affect some of
the most powerful of our business COM
binations in the least, save by the damage
done to the general business welfare of the
| country. 0tharc manld rndQihtodlV he
seriously affected, but much less so than
their weaker rivals, while the loss would
be divided between the capitalists and
laborers. and after the years of panic and
distress had been lived through, and some
return to prosperity had occurred. even
though all were on a lower plane of pros
perity than before, 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 interests
of it's foreign competitors; but it's relative
position toward its American competitors
would probably be improved, so little
would have been done toward cutting out
or minimizing the evils in the trusts; moth
ing toward securing adequate control and
regulation of the large modern corpora
lions. In other words, the questions of
regulating the trusts with a view to mini
mixing or abolishing the evils existent in
them. is separate and apart from the ques-
tion of tariff revision.
q. You must face the fact that only harm
will come from a proposition to attack
the so-called trusts in a vindictive spirit
by measures conceived solely with a de-
sire of hurting them without any regard
as to whether or not discrimination should
be made between the good and evil in
them, and without even any regard as to
whether necessary sequence OF the action
would be the hurting of other interests.
The adoption of such a policy would mean
temporary damage to the trusts, because
1t would mean temporary damage TO all
of our business interests; but the effect
the damage affected all alike, good and
bad, so the reaction would affect all alike,
good and bad.
in which l firmly believe as the only
method of eliminating the real evils of the
trust must come through wisely and eau
tiously-framed legislation, which shall aim,
In the first place, TO give definite control
to some sovereign over the great corpora
tons; and which shall be followed. when
once TINS power has been conferred, by
a system giving to the government the
full knowledge which is the essential for
satisfactory action. Then, when this
knowledge-one OF the essential features of
which is proper publicity-has been gained,
what further steps of any kind are neces-
sary can be taken with the confidence born
of the possession of power to deal with
of what ought and can be done in the
matter.
FEDERAL CONTROL NECESSARY.
w need additional power, and we need
knowledge. Our Constitution was framed
when the economic conditions were so diff.
ferent that each State could wisely be left
to handle the corporations within it's limits
as it saw fit. Nowadays all the numerous
corporations which 1 am considering dc
what is really an interstate business, and
as the States have proceeded on very diff.
ferent lines in regulating them they are
often organized in a State in which they dc
little or no business, and do an enormous
business in other States to the spirit OF
whose laws they may be openly antagonis.
tic. 1t might be better il all the States
could agree to work along the same lines
in dealing with these corporations, but L dc
not see the slightest prospect of such agree
ment.
Therefore, I personally feel that ulti
mately the Nation will have TO assume the
responsibility of regulating these very larg,
corporations which do an interstate bust
ness. The States must combine to meet th'
problem caused by the great combination!
of capital, and the easiest way for the State,
to combine is by action through the ma
tional government. i am well aware tina
the process of constitutional amendment il
necessarily a slow one, and one into which
our people are reluctant to enter, save TO
the best of reasons; but 1 am confident tina
in this instance the reasons exist. / am ais
aware that there will be difficulty in fran
ing an amendment which will meet the oh
jects of the case and yet which will secur
the necessary support. The very fact tina
there must be delay in securing the adop
ton of such an amendment insures full
discussion and calm consideration on tn
whole subject and will prevent any ill-con
sidered action.