Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1909-06-08
AMERICAN TARIFF LAWS
RELATION TO THE TRUSTS
By FREDERIC j. HAsKIN.

DE better to pay bounty on wood pulp
imported into the United States than to
assess a duty against it. This is per
maps the only time that serious-mind- /,
eU soatesan has suggested bounty on 4,
imports.
The one interesting development of the E
tariff question in the recent past is the
gradual growth of the number of man
ufacturers who advocate extensive reV1s-
ion downward. Without exception they
place themselves on the platform oil
Henry Clay-thmat he is the best friend
of protection who seeks to have II ap-
plied where necessary and cut of where
unnecessary. Not long ago the American
Academy of Political and Social Science
published a symposium of views on the
tariff question. D. Nj. Parry, the great
vehicle manufacturer, was one of the
contributors to this symposium. He
declared that whenever home prices fali
below foreign prices there is tempta-
ton in the tariff to eliminate home com
petition by combination.
H. e. Miles, another protectionist who
had stood for revision downward, comes
TO terms even more specific. He says
that in the line of manufacturing il
which he is engaged, ala the duty neces-
sary is Is per cent, or 70 per cent at the
outside, yet the Dingley law gives As pei
cent. He declares that under this the
Dingley law permits, If II does not indeed
invite, combination to increase the home
price by 20 per cent, and thereby treble
or quadruple the profits. He holds that
his own concern could have added nearly
a half million dollars to its profits hao
it taken full advantage of the situation
offered.
The late John Sherman, auothor Of the
Sherman antitrust law. was one oil
those who declared that whenever in
dustrial combinations controlled the home
market the tariff on the articles they
controlled ought to be taken of. The
Iowa idea" expressed In a state con-
vention platform drawn by the late Sen
ator Allison, took the same ground,
favoring a reduction of tariff duties
where they afforded shelter to monopolies
Representative DeArmond, of Missouri,
has a plan to prevent the trusts from.
! taking any advantage CO the shelter he
thinks they enjoy at the hands OF pro-
/ lection. He would apply the pure food
label principle to trust-mAde articles, re-
curing each article so made to be labeled
in a way showing that fact, and at the
same time to give the rate of protec-
ton duty 1t enjoys at the hands of the
! government. In this way he would the
I better educate the people as to the extent
of the sale of trust-made goods, and the
better show them the advantage afforded
the trusts through protection. 1t is need
ness to state that his idea stands small
chance of being added to the laws of the
land.
The controversy over the trusts selling
goods cheaper abroad than at home has
many phases. Perhaps the latest and most
interesting contribution to that contro-
versy is the statement that not only are
American goods sold cheaper abroad than
at home, but that this is likewise true of
other principal countries. Senator Gal.
linger stated not long ago that he had
some correspondence with Canadian es-
tablishment which offered him goods OF
its manufacture 20 per cent cheaper than
it's domestic price. Representative Ban
non, of Ohio, declared in the house that
Great Britain's export price on steel rails
was $25 per ton. while the price to the
domestic consumer was $3.50. He said
| that the German export price on steel
rails was $24 and her domestic price $50.
In France he found the export and do
nestle price $31 and S24 respectively. He
said that without exception the domestic
price of steel rails in other countries was
greater than in the United States. He
! took Ii that what was true or steel rails
was also true of other commodities.
John d. Rockefeller, Jr., has new the
DRY about the trusts and the tariff. He
| jUstifies their methods by saying: The
American Beauty rose can be produced
! in its splendor and fragrance only by
sacrificing the early buds which grow
/ Up and around it." Mr.. Rockefeller ap-
| Ilied that view to the trust question and
/ finds in ii ample excuse for the survival
! of the f1ttest" as exemplified by the
Standard oil.
! 1t is interesting to note that with the
/ sole exception of a few men like Have
meyer, Carnegie and Schwab, the trust
magnates declare that except insofar as
protection is the basis of prosperity, ii
has nothing whatever to do with the for
nation of trusts. They admit that under
prosperous conditions competition be-
comes so fierce that producers combine
to raise prices to a living level, kuow-
] ing that the tariff duties will permit them
to do so. Many Of the trust officials have
now come to the point where they de-
clare that they can stand without any
protection whatever, but in the next
breath they declare that the smaller pro-
ducers cannot, unaided, compete with the
foreigner. Someone has answered this by
4remarlxing that If the small producer
can compete with the foreigner, on the
principle that things equal to the same
thing are equal to each other. the small