Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1902-10-01

luu bLOCh VI ohCu Will Uo WOELu tuo 1dlT
market value of the property they rep
esent and nothing more.
Another and equally serious objection
IS found In the fact that if unrestrained
and permitted to increase in the future |
as they have done in the recent past,
they will soon be able to dominate the
labor markets of the country and fix at
their own sweet will the terms upon
which workmen shall be employed and
the wage that shall be paid them for
their services.
1t requires little sagacity to see that
If the day ever comes when each of the
separate lines in our manufacturing in
dustries is controlled by trust 1t would
require but one greater combination of
all, either express or implied, to fix for
each scale of wages that would be
paid by all.
A forceful example of the power they
would easily WELD in this regard is fur
nished by conditions that now exist in
the anthracite fields OF this country.
There, one huge combination has pos
sessed itself not only of the soil from
which our hard coal must come, but of
the means of transportation through
which it must reach the outer world.
For period of nearly four months
the managers of that monstrons COM
bination have been at loggerheads with
their employees over differences they are
unable to harmonic, and although
thousands upon thousands of their hard
handed workmen with their wives and
little ones are suffering for the neces-
saries of life, and the whole country is
on the verge of q fuel panic, not mus
Gle of that soullees combination Is
moved ana-ass 8 wora ur Cancellation
escapes the lips of its managers.
These men have formulated the terms
on which their workmen may return to
their roll. They can accept or stsrve;
that is their only choice.
What I have said of the two exam
pies to which have referred is largely
applicable to nearly three hundred sim
liar combinations of greater or less de-
gree.
AS heretofore stated, while all seem
to realize the danger to the great mass
of our people which this new departure
in our business methods threatens, we
are hopelessly divided in seeking rem.
edy fer it.
For generations the American people
have been divided on the question of
the right or the wrong of protective as
distinguished from revenue tariff, but
tits only in recent years that the trust
evil has entered into discussion of that
question.
The teachings of democrats logically
lead them to believe that our protective
tariff system has made the organization
of these trusts possible, and 30 long as
1t is continued, they also believe it will
furnish defensive breastwork behind
which they can find shelter from every
shaft that could reach vital part.
The course of reasoning by which
this conclusion is reached is easily un-
derstood. They say, truthfully, that
the conceded object of protective tar
itf is to exclude from our market goods
of foreign manufacture which, if per-
mitted to be imported, would be sold in
competition with home manufactures
and hence reduce the price of these to
the same level at which foreign goods
of like quality could be bought. That
so long as we MAINTAIN staritf wall that
shuts foreign goods out of our markets
there is no possible way to prevent
home producers from combining by
either express or implied agreements
and fixing the price at which their own
products shall be sold.
The futility Of legislation other than
tariff reduction In restraint of such &C.
ton is to them demonstrated by the
fact that the great bulk of our trusts
have been openly organized In the face
of antitrust laws, carefully prepared
and incorporated into the statutes of
the nation and many of the states.
They insist therefore that inasmuch
as the plain object of these combine.
tions is to destroy competition among
themselves and thereby become able to
fix their own prices upon whatever they
produce, there is but one remedy for the
evils they threaten, ana that is to take
down the wall that shelters them and
compel them to compete with the world
at large.
In this view l heartily concur as 1
do in the old and revered democratic
doctrine that tariff which is nothing
less than tax on consumers can RIGHT
fully laid be for one purpose
only, and that to raise needed revenue
for the use of the government.
But old as that doctrine is, and firmly
rooted in democratic faith as it has be-