The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-05-01
CARNEGIE'S TARIFF A B G.

Andrew Carnegie comes forward
again with public discussion of the
tariff in the May number Of the Cen |
tury Magazine. He says that the tariff |
question is perfectly simple; that there !
is nothing obscure about it, and claims
that anyone of fair intelligence can
master the whole subject in a short
time. Hc holds that tariff should be
constructed on the basis of (A) no
duties on the nccessaries Of life; OBJ |
heavy duties upon all luxuries; co |
temporary protection for new IN
dustries where il is probable that we
may be able finally to obtain a home ,
supply rs cheap as that from abroad
or cheaper. and in special cases, even
if we have to. pay more for home sup
ply for articles essential for national
safety until war has been abolished.
These three points he designates as the
a B c of the tariff question.
Now, there is not the least doubt
but that the tariff question is quite as
simple, stated on broad lines. as Mr.
Carnegie would have MS understand
Almost anyone would agree TO the
three points laid down by Mr.. Carnegie
as the A B G. of the question:; but the
trouble is in the application of those
elementary principles. Just as soon as
one undertakes to apply the general
principles in specific form. and con
cretcly upon articles that must be
named and classified for tariff purposes,
the trouble begins, Aside from a very
few things, it is pretty hard to desig
nate Injuries; and in the matter of
luXuries, Mr.. Carnegie himself departs
from his own principles in the very ar
ticle that he now contributes; for he
says he would not have any duty upon
paintings or other objects of art. But
the buying of paintings is often a com
mercial speculation. 1t very frequently,
indeed, takes that form; and when it
does not, the acquisition Of paintings
for private galleries, for the personal
satisfaction of those able to buy and
to own costly paintings, is surely
luxury. the greatest form of luxury
there is. But Mr.. Carnegie would not
have any tariff on paintings. So that
right there he departs from his own
a B G principles; and since he, who
understands the tariff question so thor
oughly, is not able to be consistent in
the main thing of those that may be
called articles of luxury, it is hopeless
10 expect others less expert to be more
consistent.
Before the upward revision of the
tariff, which was made in 1909 under
pretense Of a downward revision. Mr..
Carnegie demonstrated thoroughly that
tariff on steel, either in the form OF
billets. or of manufactured steel. The
iron and steel schedule of the tariff
law is what Mr.. Carnegie understands
better than any other part of the tariff;
and yet he was not able to convince
Congress that the manufacture Of steel
in this country had passed beyond need
of protection. AS a matter of fact, that
commodity has passed far beyond any
need of tariff protection; for everyone
|
greater than the production of Germany
and Great Britain combined. Our steel
| manufacturers can go to any part OF
| the world and compete against all bid
ders successfully on bridges, trestles,
spans, and any form of steel construc-
| tion To hold that an industry like
this, which overshadows the world, is
an infant industry which needs pro-
| lection in the United States, is absurd.
| Mr.. Carnegie expressly admits the
| combinations among manufacturers
which compel consumers to pay the
prices agreed on among the men en-
gagged in manufactures in tho differ
ent lines of product and demand. He
has hopes, however, that the new Court
| of Commerce will. in time. correct thie
evil. But the immediate correction, of
course, will be in the taking of of
duties where they are absolutely un-
needed, and where they are oppressive
| TO the American people. And. as a
basic principle we must not fail to note
that an infant cannot always remain
an infant; or, if it does, it is hopeless
to try to raise IT.