Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1902-09-26
TARIFF AND TRUSTS
PRESIDENT SHEDS LITTLE LIGHT
ON THE QUESTION.
Problem Of Dealing with Unlawful
Combinations seems to Be Beyond
the Reach of the Chief Executive
His PIatitudes.

The Presidents speeches on the
trust question leave the country as
much in the dark as ever concerning
the remedy which he and his party in
tend to apply.
Mr.. Roosevelt is careful to explain
that there are acceptable trusts or
combinations as well as unacceptable
ones and he modifies his most force
full sentences by limitations that in
dealing with the unacceptable 1t will
be very easy to bring hardship upon
the acceptable, but he has not as yet
taken the trouble to explain the diff
ference between the two.
AS matter of fact it is probable
that there are not many unlawful COM
binations and it is certain that the
real occasion of popular complaint
against the so-called trusts has hard
ly been touched upon by him at all.
To be unlawful combination must
be in restraint of production or distri-
button. Few, if any, of the trusts can
be convicted of that offense. Some of
them have made efforts in that direc-
ton and have succeeded for time,
but by far the greater number have
simply taken advantage Of the protec-
tive tariff laws to stife competition
and to control the home market
The presidents unwillingness to
discuss this phase of the subject prob
ably accounts for the vagueness which
has characterized his remarks. He
proposes publicity and constitutional
amendment giving congress control
of all corporations, the latter very
not explain the fact, which is obvious
enough, that if the seat of the trouble
is in the tariff laws, congressional
control of corporations will not reach
it.
In the loose and in some respects
foolish talk on the subject of trusts
with which the people are familiar not
much account appears to be taken Of
the certainty that if the great combi-
nations are brought into life by the
tariff their destruction would not cure
the evil, for individuals and co-part-
nerships could succeed them and eX-
ercise all the power and derive all the
advantages which now attach to them.
After everything has been said and
done the popular antipathy to trusts
Is nothing more than popular hostility
to monopoly created by law, and ex-
perience shows that monopolies may
be created and controlled by individu-
ais as well as by corporations and
combinations.
The corporation which owes it's eX-
istence and success to no unjust law,
and which engages in no conspiracy in
restraint of trade, whether it be
to the people. 1t is probably serving
a useful purpose and is natural and
necessary development of modern con-
ditions.
The corporation, however, which
has capitalized the protective tariff
which by reason of that tariff controls
a cornered market, which maintains
high prices here and meets any and
all competition abroad, and which is
as influential and insolent in politics
as it is in industry and commerce, is
another matter. This is the sort of
combination which most people would
like to curb, and which most people
would like to deprive of it's tariff shell
ter.
The question then arises: What else
is there in the trust problem which
wise and reasonable men would care
to NEEDLE with and what else differ
entiates the good trust and the bad
trust?
No constitutional amendment is
necessary to deprive the bad trusts of
the monopoly privileges which they
now enjoy.