The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-09-22
and, therefore, to be regarded as
speaking in the Pickwiclxian sense
ROOSEVELT, THE TRUSTS AND
THE TARIFF.


President Roosevelt has been prompt
to meet the situation created mainly
through the withdrawal of Speaker
Henderson from the congressional con-
test He has in his Cincinnati speech
addressed himself to the specific ques-
ton of the relation of the tariff and
the trusts raised by the speaker and
assumes practically the identical posi-
ton which Gen. Henderson assumed.
He Is a Drawer man than Henderson,
and his party responsibilities are
greater. He meets the situation, while
Henderson runs away from it.
1t is an adage among lawyers that
the court is presumed to know some
law. 1t might safely be accepted by
politicians as a truism, that the people
know something about the merits OF
the questions which are under pubic
discussion. President Roosevelt evil
IDENTIFY does not proceed on this theory,
as his academic contribution on the
trusts and their relation to govern
ment and commerce clearly indicates.
To reach clear understanding OF
his position from his Cincinnati speech
it is necessary, in order to avoid con-
fuson, to eliminate most that he
says.
Leaving out the long succession of
commonplace to which he treated his
audience, the president may be said
10 no
listing tariff, save in it's restricted re-
lationship toward the trusts. In its
relationship to the trusts he would
leave it undisturbed. The reason
ing by which he reaches this
conclusion, however, commits him
hopelessly to the proposition that any
| interference for any purpose with the
existing tariff would operate to unset
tie, so far, the business of the country,
and to destroy the small producers,
while aiming an ineffective blow at
| those trusts which are able to maintain
a substantial monopoly in the trade
they pursue. Going step beyond
this, he commits himself to the propo-
sition that the relative fewness of
the trusts which are receiving a gov
eminent bounty in the shape of a high
prohibitive- tariff, levied on possible
foreign competitors, would render any
reduction of the tariff on trust-pro.
duced commodities of no avail what
ever as a remedy against industrial
monopolies.
1t is by this line of progression that
the president reaches his chief con-
tenion, that mainly, if not entirely,
through constitutional amendment,
can the country look forward to relief
against the dangers Of the trust sys-
tenn.
The issue could not be palmer. Were
there any doubt as to the position of
the president as the representative of
his party and administration, this Gin
cinnati speech puts an end to it. The
Republican party stands in this cam
paign the apologist and defender of
the trusts, and the direct champions
of the existing tariff. Those Republi-
cans of the Northwestern states who
have been looking forward to some
presidential declaration which would
enable them to defend their party on
the assumption that it proposed the
extension of the principle of reciproc-
ity in trade with other nations, or that
it would range itself against the trusts
and with the masses, will read this
latest utterance Of the president with
diminished hopes.
Will it be said that there is no effort
to apologize for or to palliate the exist
ence Of the trusts? Throughout the
entire address runs the note Of apol-
ogy and pointless explanation. Take
this sentence out of that speech:
eff in any case the tariff is found
to foster a MONOPOLY WHICH DOES ILL,
ject to a modification of the tariff suf-
ficient to remedy the evil. But in very
few cases does the so-called trust really
monopollze the market.
A monopoly which does I'LL Can
monopoly do we'll? Can it do otherwise
than i'll? Can it exist in any commun-
ity without involving a substantial i'm
pairment Of co-equal rights? Or can
it be that President Roosevelt has, like
many others among the notable leaders
of his party, accepted the prospect of
the establishment among us of a be-
nevolent industrial-and, ultimately,
political-oligarchy, from which we
may not look for any i'll? There is
more than suspicion to be derived
from this speech that the virus Of i'm
perialism has eaten into his mental
anatomy as deep as it has into that Of
the other leaders Of his party who
have long since cast off the mask of
being other than the retained protec-
tors and advocates Of the American
plutocracy.
In very few cases, President Roose-
welt tells us, in this sentence, does the
so-called trust monopolize the market!
Does the president really expect in
telligent and reasoning men to accept
this statement as true, or, even if true,
as an argument which may be used
with advantage by him on behalf of
his party? What trust is it that does
not control a substantial monopoly
which has not been able to strangle
effective opposition-which is not at
this moment straining every resource
to accomplish this end? No; the presi-
dent cannot beg the question in any
such manner He places himself clear
ly on the record as the chief and lead
ing defender and apologist of the
! trusts, even if the most courageous in
the ranks of his party, and then takes
his place as leader of the protection
list politicians of the country. Indeed,
he surpasses the late James G. Blaine;