The Somerset reporter., 1902-08-21
Tariff Repeal Not a Cure.

Iarln hcpehi NOT q cure.
Hon. Charles z. Littlefeld in speech
In opening the Republican campaign In
Camden last week devoted considerable
attention to the trust question, taking as
his text the statement of Democrats,
THAT the tariff Is the mother of trusts. y
This statement" said Mr.. Littlefield,
lis based upon assertion and assump-
ton. First, II the tariff aff1rds shelter
therefor, 1t follows that the tariff is the
cause and the trust the result. The fact
is that the articles are many that are
protected by the tariff with reference to
which no trusts exist. Trusts exist and
that upon the largest scale known, with
reference to articles like oil, which re-
ceive no tariff protection. Moreover,
free trade England Is honeycombed with
trusts. Trusts flourish In Europe with
out reference to the tariff. II they are
organized and exist Independently of
the tariff, 1t Is conclusive demonstration
that the tariff is not essential to their
existence, and therefore cannot sustain
the relation Of cause and effect to them.
When they continue without the
shelter it is clear that the shelter is
not necessary to their continuance.
"Second, although there may be a
tariff upon the products OF a trust, the
tariff is uniform In It's operation and does
not discriminate In favor of the trust
and against those outside and 10 COM
petition with 1t. Jt applies TO all alike
that are engaged in the manufacture of
such products. The trust gets no special
favor or advantage tberefrom. 1t has no
special privilegt under the tariff. The
tariff is protection against foreign COM
petition and the native competition that
meets the trust receives the same ad-
vantage therefrom that the trust re-
ceives. The trust Is not benefited there
by at the expense of its competitor.
Third. The repeal OF the tariff would
not produce the result desired. The
essential fact and the great evil In the
attempt to monopoliZe trade is the ruth
less destruction Of competition. 1t Is
believed that the trusts competitors In
making such protected products have an
unequal struggle to preserve an indie.
pendent existence against the power OF
the trust. By Its combination, its capt.
tai, its special favors In rebates, which
1t secures from transportation companies
by the volume of its business, and It's
partial control of the market, the trust
has its isolated small competitors at a
great disadvantage. The tariff should
only be sufficient to afford such protec.
tion against foreign competition as will
enable the home industry to yield fair
return upon the capital invested, pre-.
serving always the American standard
and scale of wages. If the tariff pro.
lection exceeds these limits 1t should be
reduced for reasons entirely distinct from
the trust question, because as to the ex.
cess Of protection beyond these limits
protection departs from the fundamental
reasons that justify its existence. AS.
Stunning that the protection Is simply
adequate, its reduction or repeal, in case
of protected article produced by the
trust would expose that industry to e.
struction by foreign competition. A:
the competitors of the trust are now
operating at a disadvantage, and are
scarcely able to maintain an independent
existence, 1t Is clear that they would be
much more seriously affected by the
newly encouraged foreign competition.
"In the struggle thus precipitated be.
tween the foreign competition and the
home producers, competitors of the trust
would be the first to 90 to the wall. In.
stead of removing, it would improve the
shelter Of the trust. II the reduction
was sufficiently drastic it might destroy
the trust by running Its business and
making 1t impossible for the industry tC
be carried on In this country. 10 such
case, the trust would be the last to be
ruined. This would transfer the bust
ness to foreign country, and the con
sumner would still pay price dictated
by trust without home competition
The foreign price has always exceeded
the price resulting from the operation
of the tariff and the development and
competition of a home industry. The
public would have less shelter from
the foreign trust, as 1t would not only be
beyond legal control, but would be re
lieved from the influence of an aroused
and exaspersted public opinion, which
counts for something In such case il
this country. II the reduction did moi
extermipate the industry but seriously
injured 1t, the trust would be the only
element that could survive, and tht
operation Of the legislation would be tt
exterminate its competitors and more
firmly intrench the trust in its contro
of the market. If the reduction or re-
peal did not embarrass the independent
competitors business, then 1t would
have no effect upon the trust, and TO in
woke such legislation would be idle. Ir
one case 1t would be imperative and In
the other the effect would be the reverse
Of that desired, demonstrating that un
der no condition is the revision Of the
tariff a remedy"