Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1904-09-17

oJhers seem anxious to prove That Il *
safe to give them partial power. because
the power would be only partial and
, therefore they would not be able to do
mischief. The fast is certainly a curious
plea to advance on behalf of a party
seeking to obtain control of the govern
ment.
At the outset ii is worth while to say a
word as TO the attempt to identify the
question of tariff revision or tariff reduc-
ton with solution of the trust ques-
ton. This is always sign of desire to
avoid any real effort TO deal adequately
with the trust question in speaking
this point at Minneapolis on April 4, 1903.
1 said:
1.-The question of tariff revision. speak
ing broadly. stands wholly apart from the
question of dealing with thu trusts. No
change in tariff duties can have any sub
stantial effect in solving the SO called trust
problem. Certain great trusts or great cor
poraticns are wholly unaffected by the
tariff. Almost all the others that are of
any Importance have matter of fact
numbers of smaller American competitors,
ana of course change in the tariff which
would work injury TO the large corpora
tion would work not merely injury but
destruction to its smaller competitors.
and equally of course such a change
would mean disaster to all the wagework-
ers connected with either the large or the
small corporations. From the standpoint
of those interested in the solution of the
trust problem Such q cnanSe would there
fore merely mean that the trust was re
lieved of the competition of it's weaker
American competitors and thrown only
into competition with foreign competitors.
and that the first effort to meet this new
competition would be made by cutting
down wages and would therefore be pri-
marily 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 IL is evil
changes m he ri vii
affect the trusts for veal or for woe sim
ply as they affect the whole country The
! tariff affects trusts only il affects all
other interests. 1t makes all these inter
benefits can be taken from the large only
under penalty of taking them from the
small also"
There is little for me to add to this
IT is but ten years since the last attempt
was made. by means of lowering the tar
if. to prevent some people from prosper
ing 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 afterward effectually
prevented anybody from prospecting too
much and labor from prospecting at all
Undoubtedly II would be possible at the
present time to prevent any of the trusts
| from remaining prosperous by the simple
expedient of making such a sweeping
! change in the tariff as to paralyze the
+ industries OF the country. The trusts
4
competitors would be ruined, and the
wageworkerS would starve while il
would not pay the farmer to haul his
produce to market. The evils connected
with the trusts can be reached only by
rational effort, step by step. along the
lines taken by congress and the execu-
: tive during the past three years. If a tar
, iii law is passed under which the country
prospers. as the country has prospered
under the present tariff law. then all
classes will share i'm the prosperity. If a
, tariff law is passed aimed at preventing
the prosperity OF some of our people IL is
as certain as anything can be that this
aim will he achieved only by cutting
down the prosperity of all of our people.
OF course If our opponents are not sim
eere in their proposal to abolish the sys-
, tenn OF protective tariff there is no use
| in arguing the matter at all save by
pointing out again that il on one great is
/ sue they do not mean what they say it is
hardly safe to trust them on any other
( issue. But If they are sincere i'm this
matter then their advent TO power would
mean domestic misfortune and misery as
widespread and far reaching as that which
we saw ten years ago. When they speak
, of protection as robbery they of course
must mean that IL is immoral TO enact a
tariff designed, is the present protcc-
tive tariff. TO secure to the American
wagcworker the benefit of the high stand
ard of living which desire to see kept
up in this country. Now, to speak of the
tariff in this sense as robbery" thereby
giving IL moral relation is not merely
/ rhetorical; ii is on its face false. The
| question OF what tariff is best for our
people is primarily one of cxpediency, to
be determined not abstract academic
grounds, but in the light of experience.
1t is n matter Of business for fundamen-
tally ours is business people-manufac-
| turers. merchants, farmers. WaCeworkers
| professional men. all alike. Our expert
| cnee as a people in the past has certainly
| not shown us that we could afford i'm this
matter 20 follow those professional coun-
SelorS who have confined themselves to
| study I'm the closet for the actual work
| ing OF the tariff has emphatically contra
| dicted their theories From time TO time
| schedules must undoubtedly be rear
| ranged and rcadiusted TO meet the shift
/ Ing needs of the country but this can
| with safety be done only by those who
| are committed 10 the cause of the pro-
\ tecttVc system. To uproot and DESTROY
| that system would be to insure the proc
4 tration OF business, the closing OF fac
1 tories. the impoverishmcnt of the farmer.
1 the ruin OF the capitalist and the star
walton OF the wageworl<er. Yet. il protec-
| ton is indeed robbery" and If our oppo-
4 ncntS really believe what they saw
then IL is precisely to the destruction and
4 uprooting of the tariff. and therefore of
our business and industry, that they are
| pledged. When our opponents last OBJ
4 tanned power IL was on a platform de-
4 claring n protective tariff 'unconstitu-
| tional." and the effort TO put this dccla-
| ration into practice was one of the causes
of the general natiosal prostration last
! ing from 1898 to 1891 If a protective tariff
1 is either unconstitutional" or robbery"
/ then 1t is just as unconstitutional, Just as
4 much robbery, to revise il down. still leaV-
/ ing 1t protective, as il would be to enact
| IL. In other words, our opponents have
committed themselves to the destruction
| OF the protective principle in the tariff,
4 using words which If honestly used for
bid them from permitting this principle
| 10 obtain in even the smallest degree
] Our opponents assert that they believe
| In reciprocity. Their action on the most
important reciprocity treaty recently ne
Igotiated-that with Cuba-does not bear
| out this assertion. Moreover. there can
| be no reciprocity unless there is sub
stanual tariff. Free trade and reciproc-
ity are not compatible. We are on record
as favoring arrangements for reciprocal
trade relations with other countries these
! arrangements TO be on an equitable basis
1 he