Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1902-10-02
REVISION AS REMEDY
Repudiated by the President for
Treatment of the Trusts.
Government Control and Publicity
Urged to Meet the Crisis-COnsti-
tutionsI Amendment the
Ultimate Resource.

The keynote of tire republican par
| tvs attitude on the tariff crisis, pre-
cipitated by Speaker Henderson's with
drawal from the congressional race in
Iowa, was sounded at Cincinnati on
Saturday, September 20, by President
Roosevelt in a lengthy address, in the
course of which he said:
'sThere are certain conditions which,
think, we lay down as Indispensable to the
| proper treatment of all corporations which,
| from their size, have become important
| factors in the social development of the
community.
Before speaking, however of what can
be done by way of remedy, let me say
word or two as to certain proposed RENE
dies which, ir my judgment, would be in
effective or mschievous. The first thing
to remember is that If we accomplish any
good at all II must be by resolutely Keeping
in mind the intention to do away with any
evils in the conduct of big corporations
while steadfastly refusing to assent to in
discriminate assault on all forms of corpor-
ate capital as such. The line of demarca-
ton drawn must always be on conduct, not
or wealth. Our objection to any given
corporation must be not that II Is big, but
that II behaves badly.
Nor can We afford to tolerate any pro-
posal which will strike at the so-called
being. We are now enjoying a period OF
great prosperity. This prosperity Is gener-
ally diffuseG through all sections ana
through all classes. The men who propose
to get rid of the evils of the trusts by meas
ures which will do away with this general
well-being advocate a policy which would
rot only be damage to the community as
a whole, but would defeatits own professed
object.
Considers Remedies for Evils.
"A remedy much advocated at the mo-
ment is to take off the tariff from all arti-
cles which are MADE by trusts. To DO this 1t
will be necessary first to define trusts. The
language commonly used by the advocates
of the method implies that they mean all
articles made by large corporations, and
that the changes in tariff are to be made
with punitive intent toward these large
corporations. OF course, If the tariff IS to
be changed in order TO punish them 1t
should be changed so as to punish those
who do Ill, not merely those that are pros
porous. 1t would neither be just nor ex-
pedient to punish 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 mala adminis-
tration.
Some Of those corporations Go well and
others do Ill. II in any case the tariff is
found TO foster a monopoly which does Ill,
why, of course, no protectionist would OBJ
tect to a modification of the tariff sufficient
TO remedy the evil But in very few cases
does the so-called trust really monopollze
the market. Take any very big corporation
which controls. say, something over half
the products of given industry.
Affects Big and Little Alike
"Surely in rearranging tine schedules af-
fect!ng such a big corporation il would be
necessary TO consider the interests of its
smaller competitors, which control the re-
naming part and which being weaker
would suffer most from any tariff designed
to punish all the producers; for. OF course
the tariff must be made light or heavy for
big and little producers alike. Moreover,
such a corporation necessarily employs
very many thousands of workmen, and the
minute we proceeded from denurclation to
action it would be necessary to consider the
interests Of these workmen.
Furthermore, the products of many
trusts are unprotected, and would be en-
tirely unaffected by any change in the
tariff, or at most very slightly so. The
Standard Oil company offers case in
point, and the corporations which control
the anthracite coal output offer another
for there is no duty whatever on anthracite
coal.
Scope of Argument.
'I am not now discussing the question of
the tariff as SUCH whether from the stand
point of the fundamental difference be-
tween those who believe in protective tar
IN and those who believe in free trade, nor
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
enlarging our markets; nor yet from the
standpoint of those who feel that stability
of economic policy is at the moment our
prime economic need, and that the bene-
fits to be derived from any change in sched-
~ pn aFc co taf nr he Ia M 90
to business caused by the widespread agi-
tation which would follow any attempted
general revision of the tariff at this mo-
ment
without regard to the wisdom Of any
one OF those three propositions, II remains
true that the real evils connected with the
trusts cannot be remedled by any change
in the tariff laws. The trusts can be dam
aged by depriving them of the benefits of
protective tariff only on condition of
Damaging all their small competitors and
all the wage wrkers employed In the indus
try. This point Is very important and it is
desirable to avoid any save wilful misun-
derstand!ng.
Effect Of Tariff Changes.
81 am not now considering whether on
grounds totally unconected with the trusts,
it would be well to lower the duties on vari-
Gus schedules. either by direct legislation
or by legislation or treaties designed to
secure as an offset reciprocal advantages
from the nations with which we trade.
MY point is that changes in the tarifr
would have little appreciable effect 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 smaller corporations or one of our
private individuals in business, still less
one Of own wage workers as against
large corporation In the same business, on
the contrary, II It bore heavily on the large
corporation 1t would inevitably be felt still
more by that corporations weaker rivals,
while any injurious result would Of neces-
slty be shared by both the employer and
employed IN the business concerned.
The !mme date Introduction Of substan-
tia! free trade In all articles manufactured
by trusts that Is, by the largest ard most
successful corporatioHs-would not affect
some of the most powerful of our business
combinations in the least, save by the dam
age Done to the general business welfare
OF the country; others would undoubtedly
be seriously affected, but much less so than
their weaker rivals, while the loss would be
divided between the capitalists and the la
borers, and after the years Of panic and
distress had been lived through ard some
return 10 prosperity ha1 occurred. even