Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-01-16
T,,,sta and the Tariff.

Tn the New York Tribune's cable ietter
from London appears the following:
"Prof w. Smart read a most interesting
naner on industrial trusts at meetihs -.
the Society of Arts last night. trusts, nc ),
said, were the phenomena Oh ~, q
progress. They were the elimination OF tne
unnecessary person, the unnecessary pro-
cess and the unnecessary thing IN the pr.
duction and distribution OF gooos; aeao
were many features OF resemplance pet%es
the American trusts and British comoina.
tions. Both forms of organization almeo at
being monopolies, but while, THANKS " pr
tests, American trusts, secured asa p,
competition from the outside. might attaIl.
an effectiye monopoly within their own
country. and enjoy the high prices OF a
monopoly, British combinations, nvlng
under fierce struggle or compettioa VIII VIZ.
all the world, could survive only at the Cost
cost Mr. Smart said that British combi-
nations were not as rule, strikingly sue
cessful. He might have pointed out that
some of them were rank failures SIT Hop-
ert Giffen, who took part in the discussion
which followed the reading Of the paper,
expressed the opinion that II the United
States were to abandon high tarin the
mischief of the trusts would be ended at
one stroke"
Here. we see, are two distinguished En-
glishmen who differ on the trust question.
Prof Smart points out that free trade
England harbors trusts as well as protec-
ton America. American trusts he thinks.
have an advantage in the protective tarin
so far as the home market Is concerned,
but still English trusts flourish. They
simply require a nicer cutting of the corn
ers We may assume therefore that Prof.
Smart does not believe that the adoption
of a free trade policy by the United States
would solve our trust problem. II trusts
flourish In free trade England why would
they not flourish in free trade American
1t is Sir Robert Giffen who repeats the
view held by the free traders in this coun-
try. He says that we have only to get rid
Of our high tariff to end all the mischief
that our trusts do. Probably. And at the
same time we might end good many
things it Is to our advantage to continue.
To give up all the benefits we are deriving
from protection properly adjusted IN order
to eliminate the trust evil would be an act
of monumental folly. We have not as yet
despaired Of correcting that evil by means
which will leave our tariff policy In its
general lines unimpaired for usefulness.
In fact. Just at this time. the ablest of our
public men in the two houses Of Congress
are wrestling with the proposition, and
there Is a well-authorized hope that out Of
their labors will spring remedy Of value.
A radical change in our tariff policy
would undoubtedly shake up the trusts
from the bottom. and cause general read
justment Of plans. But, so far as the
trusts are concerned. would It do more than
that? Would they not reappear In new
forms and combinations. and proceed. as
they are now doing. to their own ends
unless restrained in some way7 Should we
not still have the real trust evil with us.
and maybe in increased measure? England
does not escape 1t. nor does Germany.
Neither should we, no matter how deep
our cut might be on all the schedules of
our tariff law. Sir Robert Giffen and other
Englishmen would be happy to see US pro-
coed in that way. but they are not likely
to be gratifled.