Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-10-27
Mr.. Rayner on the Tariff.

Senator Rayner is talking tariff to his
constituents, and saying some good things.
For an instance take this
IT am not a revolutionist on the subject
of the tariff I believe in revenue tar
iff. and l would not destroy or impair
"a single business interest in this country
that was making a legitimate profit out of
dts enterprise but l am an inveterate enc
my of these colossal combinations that are
making their own prices for the American
consumers, and who no longer require the
protection of the government for their sup
port"
That is sound protection ground. Mr..
Mckinley at Buffalo five years ago spoke to
the same effect. He asked that the tariff
be reduced on, or removed from. articles
which no longer needed the protection en-
joyed. If the republicans had needed the
advice of their great leader Mr.. Rayner
would be minus topic today. 1t is sur
prising thing that words of so much weight
from such source should have been so
long neglected.
Proceeding. Mr.. Rayner says:
"You will readily understand why there
are many of these trust combinations
In the land-nearly 800 of them, alphabet
cally arranged They amounted to about
$500. 900. 600 before the Dingley tariff bill
was passed. Now. based upon the reciproc-
fly fraud and the prohibitive provisions
OF the bill. they amount to over $4,000
900. The steel trust alone represents ST.
bO0.O00,O00, and pays dividend of $50, O00.-
900 a year"
Yes. but the senator should take into
account also the many benefits that have
resulted from the Dngley bill. The trusts
are not the only things that have increased
in this country since that bill became
aaw. Figures of prosperity from which
everybody in some measure draws are
are with US is a sign of the difference be-
tween these times and those of the starva-
ton times just preceding the enactment of
the Dingley law. All we have to do is to
curb the trusts. We should not destroy
them.
Then, the report goes, 1.-The senator
quoted from the testimony of Mr.. Have
meyer before the Industrial commission in
which the latter is quoted saying that
without the tariff doubt II we should have
dared to take the risk of forming the trust:
i should not have embarked in the sugar
business. unless it was protected by tar
H."
Always, In referring to the tariff and the
Sugar trust. it is but fair for speaker or
writer to state that that trust in particu-
lar has no politics. according to the con-
6essions of Mr.. Havemeyer, the president
but has contributed to the campaign funds
Of both parties. 1t Is likewise a we'll es-
fablished fact that the sugar trust has been
protected by the tariff legislation of both
parties The democratic party. indeed in
revising the tariff in 1894 practically per-
mltted the sugar trust to write its own
schedule. The trust, with it's tongue in
fits cheek. had aided the antitrust howl
of the C1evelandites in 1892 by liberal
Campaign contribution to the democratic
war chest. and came forward at the proper
time for "the goods" and got them.
In asking for a revision Of the tariff on
conservative lines Mr.. Rayner does we'll
But he ought to be a little more careful
about particulars. They are necessary to
an elucidation of the subject