Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1902-09-27

orally dtfused through ali sections and
through all classes Doubtless there are
some individuals who do not get enough Of
It, and there are others who get too much.
But this Is simply another way Of saying
that the wisdom Of mankind Is finite thai
perfectly.
If we are forced to the alternative Of
choosing a system under which most Of US
prosper somewhat, though a few Of US pros
per TOO much, or else a system under which
no one prospers enough, why, Of course,
advocated Is so revolutionary and destruct-
I've as to involve the whole community in
the crash OF common disaster 1t Is as GER
tain as anything can be that when the dis
aster has occurred all efforts to regulate the
trusts VIII cease and that the one aim will
be to restore prosperity.
The Tariff and Trusts,
remedy much advocated at the moment
Is to take off the tariff from all articles
Will be necessary to define trusts. The Ian
guage commonly used by the advocates Of
the method implies that they mean all arti-
cies made by large corporations, and that
the changes In tariff are to be made with
punitive intent toward these large corpora
tons OF course, II the tariff is to be
changed, In order to punish them, 1t should
be changed so as to punish those that do i'll,
not merely those that are prosperous. 1t
would neither be just nor exDedent to pun
lsh the big corporations as big corporations;
What we wish to do is to protect the people
from any evil that may grow out Of their
existence or NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.. Some of
those corporations do we'll and others do Ill.
II In any case the tariff is found to foster
monopoly which does Ill, why, of course,
protectionist would object to q modification
sufficient to remedy the evil. But In very
few cases does the so-called trust really
mOnOpOltZe the market. Take any very big
corporation which controls say something
over half the products Of a given industry.
Surely In rearranging the schedules affect
Ing such big corporation, 1t would be nee
essary to consider the interests Of it's small
er competitors which control the remaining
part, and which, being weaker, would suf-
FER most from any tariff designed to pun
tariff must be made light or heavy for big
and little products alike. Moreover, such
corporation necessarily employs very
many thousands Of workmen, and the min
ute we proceed from denunciation to ac-
ton 1t would be necessary to consider the
interests Of these workmen. Furthermore,
the products of many trusts are unprotect-
ed and would be entirely unaffected by any
change In the tariff, or at most very slight
ly so.
The Standard Oil Company offers a case
in point and the corporations which con-
troll the anthracite coal output offer anoth-
er-fOr there Is no duty whatever on an
thraclte coal. | am not discussing the ques-
tlon OF the tariff such, whether from
the standpoint of the fundamental differ
ence between those who believe in a pro-
tective tariff and those who believe in free
trade; or from the standpoint Of those who,
while they believe in protective tariff, feel
that there could be a Encouragement Of our
schedules, either by direct legislation or by
reciprocity treaties, which would result in
charging markets, yet from the
standpoint of those who feel that stability
of economic policy Is at the moment
prime need condition and that the benefits to
be derived from any change in schedules
would not compensate for the damage done
to business caused by the widespread agita-
tiOu which would follow Cd
vision of the tariff at this moment.
Revision Not the Cure.
Without regard to the wisdom of any of
those three positions 1t 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 protec
tive tariff, only on condition of damaging
all their smaller competitors and all the
wage workers employed in the industry.
This point is very important and it is de-
sirable to avoid any save wilful misunder-
standing. l am not now considering Wheth-
err or not on grounds totally uncOnnected
with the trusts 1t would be we'll to lower
the duties on various schedules, either by
direct legislation or by legislation or trea
ties designed to secure reciprocal advant-
ages from the nations with which we trade.
My point Is that changes in the tariff would
have little appreciable effects on the trusts,
save as they shared in the general harm or
good proceeding from such changes. No
tariff change would help one of our Ssaaller
corporations, or one of our private individ-
uals In business, still less one of our wage
workers as against Il large corporation in
the same business; on the contrary, if it
bore heavily the large corporation, 1t
would inevitably be felt still more by that
corporations weaker rivals while any In
furious result would of necessity be shared
by both the employer and employed In the
business concerned. The immediate intro
duction of substantial free trade in all ar
ticles manufactured by trusts, that is by
hn most successful CORPORATIONS
would not affect some of our most power
full business corporations in the least save
for the damage done to the business wei
fare Of the country, others would be seri-
0usly affected, but much less so than their
weaker rivals while the loss would be d.
vided between the capitalists and the Ia
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, big corporation, would nave
suffered relatively to, and In the interest OF
its foreign competitors, but its relative po-
sitiOn toward it's American competitors
would probably be improved; little would
have been done toward cutting out or min
imizing the evils in the trusts; nothing to-
wards securing adequate control and regu-
ation of the large modern corporations. In
other words, the question of regulating the
trusts with a view to minimizing or abol-
and apart from the question Of tariff revis-
ion.
The Presidents Plan.
You must face the fact that only harm
will come from a proposition to attack the
so-called trusts in vindictive spirit by
measures conceived solely with a desire 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
a necessary sequence of the action would
be the hurting of other interests. The adop-
ton Of such a policy would mean temper,
ary damage to the trusts because 1t would
mean temporary damage to all of our bust
ness interests: but the effect would be only
temporary, for exactly as the damage at
fected ali alike. good and bad, so the re
action would affect all alike good and bad.
The necessary supervision and control In
which | firmly believe is the only method
Of eliminating the real evils of the trust,
must come through wisely and cautiously
framed legislation, which shall aim, IN the
first place, to give definite control to some
sovereign over the great corporations, and
which shall be followed, when once this
mower has been conferred, by system Civ
ING to the government the full knowledge
witch Is the essential for satisfactory &C
ubnp this knowledge has been