The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-09

COUNTS IOf O(AAlls II al II COuIAEVOll e
evidence and not sentiment prevails. And
In this connection / want 20 add that IL
will be- very difficult to draft an antitrust
that IL has been violated. A great many
people have drafted political platforms who
seem to have lost sight or this fact I
had a young German come into my Office
once. who told me he had come money in
the old country and his guardian was steal
ing il. He wanted | should write 10 the
would stop il. He had been attending
Democratic conventions. and he thought
the law enforced itself.
/ now desire 10 look az some remedies
that have been suggested. Prominent -
that of publicity. And yet / think no one
expects this to be a complete remedy for
every phase of the trust problem. II Is
expected to be a protection against hc;i-
tious capitalization. and 10 disclose, in
many instances at least. the real character
and inside operations Of the concern. and
TO invite competition. Ii ought 10 do these
things at least. If corporations are COM
PEELED TO make public the details OF their
business, the actual money cost OF their
plants, prices paid for material, operating
expenses. including wages. prices obtained
for product, both gross and net profits, IL
and capital. OF which w have an abund-
ance, to engage In competition. This Is
the remedy so earnestly ecommended by
our wise and conscientious President.
OF course the opposition party comes for
ward with its time-hoEored panacea for all
financial and industrial ills. Ii charges all
evils 10 the protective tarln, and as a
remedy for all evils it demands the re-
moval OF all protective tariffs. The trust
being an admitted evil must necessarily,
from a Democratic standpoint. be occa-
stoned by protection, and the remedy must,
OF course, DE the removal OF protection.
That issue has been fought over again
and again ever since the revival OF indus
tries at the close of the civil war. The
anti-monopoly party declared that the
tarin was the mother of monopolies. When
| the Sherman act was pending the Demo-
o-affC nQrrV in Congress dnnnrnnoI fAa
bill as revolutionary; said il would AFFORD
! no remedy, and declared the correct thing
would be to adjust the tariff so as to in
wife foreign competition. Just before the
bill came to a vote in the House a Demo-
cratic leader. William L. Wilson. who was
OF the committee appointed i'm 1883, and
who signed the report saying in effect that
the task of dealing with trusts was too
great for his party, and recommending
that the Republican party deal with IL.
and who subsequently became the author
of the Wilson-Gorman bill, made a speech
~denouncing the pending measure. He de-
clared that 1t would seriously affect the
business and prosperity of the country,
and, what was more, the rights and hber-
ties of the people. and added: Was ever
He openly took the position that the fe'-
eral government could not deal with trusts.
WILSON, ON TRUSTS.
/ quote a few sentence from his speech:
81 have said this much only TO show that
the common basis of trusts is the corpora
ton. If, therefore, the organiza-
ton of a trust must have the corporation
as a basis, it is clear, Mr.. Speaker, that
the first and most effective blow at that
organization must be struck, not by Con-
gress, but by the States. II any che sup
poses that such a bill as this. no matter
how severe the punishment il threatens or
how sweeping may be its prohibitions. viii
prevent such combinations as IL seeks to
4 DESTROY. he docs NOT fear fully un0er-
trusts"
No wonder the Democratic committee re-
ported a difference of opinion on the part
OF the members of the committee" Here
we have Mr.. Wilson, a leading Democrat.
saying Congress cannot deal with trusts;
that the State must strike the blow" and
Mr.. Bryan, the biggest Democrat of two
quadrenniums. declaring at the top of his
condition that the State cannot deal with
trusts" but that the attorney general must
draft an amendment that will empower
Congress adequately to deal with trusts"
r Mr, wilson a then ne goes on ma ana no,v u fssssra 4
remedy. He attaches to his speech certain
extracts from papers on trusts written by
himself for the Baltimore Sun. In these
he makes an argument that the protective
tariff invites overproduction. and that 10
escape the loss threatened by overproduc-
ton manufacturers are compelled TO form
these combinations" The circle is" he
says, first. excessive stimulation; next. ex-
cessive production. and lastly, combination
dedAlot Tic 1Otlcullti. VII III
Mr.. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, made a
proposition in the last Congress-" (the Fiji
tieth) that whenever the chief production
or sale of any article passed into the con-
troll of a trust the secretary of the treas
ury should place that article on the free
list until the trust was dissolved" That.
remedy during Mr.. Cleveland's first admin
istration. Mr.. Wilson adds:
Public sentiment, doubtless. would APP
prove such a measure. but II would punish
the innocent together with the guilty; the
independent refiners. as well as the sugar
trust, and would unsette business and In
wife combinations for mere purposes or
speculation"
L make these quotations to show that I'm
1890 the biggest Democrat in Congress
their leader-opposed the Sherman act
first, because IL was revolutionary; second,
because IL would be Ineffective; third, be-
cause the State. and not Congress. should
deal with the evil. and then urged a reyf-
sion OF the tariff as a cure-all; and also TO
show that while he did this in a most stren-
uous way, he recognized and admitted. as
the mouthpiece of his party, that placing
trust-controned articles on the free list
would punish the innocent together with
the guilty" that it would introduce such
'vacillation in our tariff laws as would un-
settle business" and that IL would Invite
combinations for mere purposes OF specula-
ton" When the opposition party. nghtins
with united ranks in 1880. and on the eve
of a great victory. would not consider a
remedy so manifestly fraught with evil, i
do not believe the Republican party, in the
AilA " ~ HlIaLt ~ 80
pick up a Democratic castaway.
But Mr.. Wilson in 1894 admitted that a
revision of the tariff, however wisely ad-
justed, would not cure the evil: for ne In
corporated into the revised tarin law which
bears his name the identical provisions Of
the Sherman act. This would have been
unnecessary had he believed trusts could
have been successfully reached by a re-
vision of the tariff.
But / do not want to leave this subjeci
until / have analysed the tariff remedy q
little further. And / speak Of the tariff to-
night only in its relation to trusts. / dc
ure. The best way TO determine the wis
!, dom of a remedy is to make application
: thereof to specie instances. II there is q
? monopoly OF any kind In the United State.
II probably is the Standard Oil COMPANY
2 and yet its success has been in no manner
e dependent upon the. tariff. Protection. then
, is not the cause OF this monopoly. and 4
; not the cause of all monopolies then its re
? moval would not cure all monopolies.
7 MOI is the tariff the cause of every recen
e advance in prices. Crude petroleum, on tn
4 free list. went from 60 cents per barrel II
! November, 1897, 10 $l30 per barrel In No
L The wholesale price OF standard Rio coffe'
advanced from s cents In August. 1855. [,
over 9 cents I'm August. 1900. fully so pc
. cent; choice Japan tea advanced from lSi
p cents i'm August, 1901, to rs cents in August
. 1902, an advance of IS per cent: raw sill
I advanced so per cent. between January
1898, and January, 1900; raw cotton at New
York advanced 80 per cent. from October
1898, To October. 1900; sisai hemp, from
e Mexico, advanced $50 per cent. from April
[ 1897. to April, 1902; pig tin advanced "a
4 a. AGnEnh ION