The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-12
be trusted not to abuse the power they

Of the tariff we are at once confronted
by the doubt as to whether our OPP
say. They say that protection is rob-
berry, and promise to carry. themselves
accordingly if they are given power.
Yet prominent persons among them as
sert that they do not really mean this
and that if they come into power they
tariff; while others seem anxious to
prove that it is safe to give them par
tial power, because the power would be
only partial, and therefore they would
not be able to do mischief. The last is
certainly curious plea to advance on
behalf of a party seeking to obtain con-
troll of the government.
Tariff and Trusts.
| At the outset it is worth while to
say word as to the attempt to identify
the question of tariff revision or tariff
question. This is always a sign of de-
sire to avoid any real effort to deal ade-
quately with the trust question. In
speaking on this point at Minneapolis,
on April 4, 1903, / said:
The question Of tariff revision,
from the question of dealing with the
trusts. No change in tariff duties can
have any substantial effect in solving
the so.called trust problem. Certain
great trusts or great corporations are
most all the others that are Of any i'm
portance have as a matter of fact num-
bers of smaller American competitors;
and of course a change in the tariff
which would work injury to the, large
jury but destruction to it's smaller COM
petitors; and equally of course such a
change would mean disaster to all the
wageworkers, connected with either the
large or the small corporations. From
the standpoint Of those interested in the
solution Of the trust problem such a
change would therefore merely mean
1 that the trust was relieved Of the COM
Ipetition of it's weaker American COM
petitors,, and thrown only into compete
I ton with foreign competitors; and that
the first effort to meet this new compe-
wages and would therefore be primarily
at the cost of labor: In the case of
some of our greatest trusts such a
change might confer upon them a posi-
; tive benefit; Speaking broadly, it is
woe simply as they affect the whole
country. The tariff affects trusts only
, as it affects all other interests. It
makes all these interests, large or small
profitable, and it's benefits can be taken
from the large only e under 1ms p eEa Of
There is little for me to add to this
; 1t is but ten years since the last at
; tempt was made, by means of lowering
the tariff, to prevent some people from
prospecting too much. The attempt was
entirely successful. The tariff law of
that year was among the causes which
in that year and for some time after
wards .effectually prevented anybody
from prospecting too much,. and labor
from prospecting at all. Undoubtedly it
would be possible at the present time
to prevent any of the trusts from re
: pedient Of making such a sweeping
change in the tariff as to paralyze the
industries Of the country. The trusts
, would cease to prosper; but their small
er competitors would be ruined, anC
the wageworkers would starve, while i
would not pay the farmer to haul hi
! produce to market.
be reached only by rational effort, stel
by step, along the lines taken by con
= gress and the executive during the pas
three years. If a tariff law Is passe'
! l under which the country prospers, as tn
T. country has prospered under the presen
J tariff law. then all classes Will share II
7 the prosperity. If a tariff law is passe
, aimed at preventing the prosperity o
0 some; Of our people. 1t Is as certain a
:, anything can be that this airn will b
GCHlcvSu oHty ny CukSlnS OOWH the pros
n perity Of all Of our people.
y Of course, if our opponents are no
u sincere in their proposal to abolish tn
J system of protective tariff, there i
, no use in arguing the matter at all
:, save by pointing out again that if OF
:, one great issue they do not mean wha
Il q they say, it is hardly safe to trust then
. on any other issue. But if they ar
sincere in this matter, then their ad
| 10 ,octi
misfortune and misery as widespread
J. and far-reaching as that which we say
: protection as "robbery," they, 0
= course, must mean that it is immoral t
t, enact tariff designed Gas is the pres
g American wageworker the benefit o
d the high standard Of living which W
> desire to see kept up in this country
e Now to speak of the tariff in thi
It sense as "robbery,' thereby giving
Il moral relation, is not merely rheto1
ls ton of what tariff is best for our pee
# pie is primarily one of expediency, t
J. be determined not on abstract acs
a, demic grounds, but in the light Q
S. experience. 1t is a matter of bus
< ness; for fundamentally ours
If business psoplemanHfaetur rel,
D. fessional men, all alike. Our experienc
as people in the past has certainly nc
o. shown us that we could afford in thi
tn matter to follow. those professions
re counselors who have confined then
Id selves to study in the closet; for til
s. actual working of the tariff has en-
ne phatically contradicted their theorie
IT, From time to time schedules must III
Iy doubtedly be rearranged and readiuste
ty to meet the shifting needs of the cou1
Id try, but this can with safety be don
only by those who are, committed
al the cause of the protective system. 7
re uproot and destroy that system woul
ed be to insure the prostration of bushes
ev the closing of factories, the impoveris]
I'd ment of the farmer, the ruin of til
Nv capitalist and the starvation of til
w wageworker. Yet, if protection is il
he deed "robbery,0 and if our opponent
ID. really believe what they say, then it :
re precisely to the destruction and vi
re roofing of the tariff, and therefore
he our business and industry, that they al
NJ pledged. When our opponents last oil
,s- tanned power it was on platform d
at claring protective tariff unconstit,
IS tional"; and the effort to put tn
It's declaration into practice was one Of Il
a causes Of the. general national prostr
at tion lasting from 1898 to 1897. If
he protective tariff is either Hunconstit
M tional'' or robbery then it is, jul
of as unconstitutional, just as much ro
an berry, to revise it down, still leaving
,es protective, as it would be to enact
he In other words, our opponents ha,
us committed themselves to the destructic