Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1908-08-25

pathy with, and obligated to, the cor.
poraticns which have for generation
been enjoying special privileges.
There Is no prospect of relief from
q Republican president and congress
The Democratic party, If entrusted
with power, can and will reduce the
tariff.
The Democratic platform not only de
mands reduction of the tariff, but ii
plainly outlines the course to be pur-
sued In securing the reduction. 1t be.
gins by proposing that articles which
come into competition with articles
controlled by trust be placed on the
free list. What better place to begin
Years ago Mr.. Havemeyer, the head of
the Sugar Trust, said that the tariff
was the mother Of trusts and her
children are many. Secretary Taft, in
| his notification speech, says that an
excessive tariff serves no useful pur-
pose "but offers temptation to those
who would monopolize the production
and the sale of such articles in this
country, to profit by the excessive
tate"
Now suppose the manufacturers who
have been favored by legislation, do
conspire against the public and enter
into monopoly. What penalty do the
| Republicans suggest? None whatever.
| These men are to be consulted about
proposed changes, and If the next Re-
publican tariff is made like former Re
publican tariffs, nothing will be done
without the unanimous consent of the
beneficiaries.
What would be the effect of the
remedy proposed by the Democratic
platform? Simply this:--a law goes
into effect at some fixed date in the
! future, and if the Democrats pass a
law putting upon the free list articles
coming into competition with those
controlled by trust, the trust will
have until that date to dissolve. If the
trust considers the law too drastic, it
can avoid 1t by giving up it's monop-
oily
Secretary Taft calls this remedy cut
terly destructive" and in his anxiety
to prevent it overlooks the fact that
the Democratic party has other RENE
dies for the trusts. If we can succeed
in dissolving existing trusts, and in
preventing the organization of new
ones there will be no trusts against
which to use the remedy of which he
complains. There Is now law against
trusts, but it has not been sufficiently
enforced to prevent trusts. The Demo
Gratis demand it's enforcement; if it's
enforcement rids the country of trusts
then this policy which Mr.. Taft so
much fears will become perfectly
harmless. If the Democrats secure
control Of both the house and the sen.
ate, they are pledged to legislation
| which will make a private monopoly
impossible. If the Republicans retain
control of part of the legislative ma
chinery of the government and refuse
to join in the effort to make private
monopoly impossible, they are not in
a position to complain of "iff legis-
lation aimed at trusts. If thoy refuse
to assist us in DISCRIMINATING the prin-
ciple of private monopoly they CO not
we'll object to legislation necessary to
protect the people from trust extor-
tion.
Mr.. Taft did not refer to the plat
form demand that wood pulp, print pa
per, lumber, timber and logs be placed
upon the free list. Why? Because the
president vainly besought congress to
enact law embodying part of this de-
mand. 1t is absurd to complain of the
exhaustion of our forests while we en-
courage their destruction by a tariff
on the products of foreign forests. But
such legislation becomes not only a
folly but crime when it Is remember
ed that a handful of mer mcnopolize
the benefits flowing from the tariff
on these things while the whole
country bears the burden of the tax.
He regards this threatened de-
parture from the protective system as
fatal We are here brought face to
face with the theoretical difference be-
tween the positions OF the two parties
or the subject Of tariff The Demo-
cratic party regards a tariff law as a
revenue law, the protection it givos
being incidental the Republican party
regards tariff Law as framed primar-
incidental AS the effect of a given
rate on a particular article is the
same, whether levied for the purpose
of revenue or for the purpose of pro-
tecticn, 1t may be well to define the
difference between a revenue tariff and
a protective tariff. A revenue tariff
Is SO framed as to collect a revenue
anu you STOP WNcH you get enough;
protective tariff may be SO framed as
to collect but little revenue, and yet
lay heavy burden upon the people
and you never know when to stop. To
illustrate: a tariff may be made so
high as to absolutely prohibit importa-
ton. If, in such a case. the manufac-
turers yield to the temptation mem
toned by Mr.. Taft and combine to
take advantage of the duty, the con-
sumers will be heavily taxed, and yet
none of the money will reach the
treasury.
Let us suppose another case: If
we import one-tentn of a certain kind
Of merchandise and produce at home
nine-tenths, and the imported and
domestic articles sell at the same price,
then the treasury receives duty on
the foreign article and the manufacture
ers collect nine times as much on the
domestic article as the treasury col
lects on the one-tenth imported. 1t be
comes matter of great Importance,
therefore, to the people at large,
whether the tariff is intended to raise
q revenue or is framed in the interest
of the manufacturers and for the pur-
pose of protection. No one would think
Of employing in a city, a county or a
state a tax system under which the