The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-08-01

large part of our manufacturing indus try. We would not have to wait for actual legislation on this subject. The very prospect of Democratic success when it's policy toward our great pro- tected industries became understood would postpone indefinitely the coming of prosperity and tend to give us a re- currence of the hard times that we had in the decade between 1890 and 1897.
 The Democratic platform declares protection to be unconstitutional, al though it has been the motive and pur- pose of most tariff bills since 17S9, and indicates as clearly as possible the in tentions to depart from protective policy at once. 1t is true, the Demo cratic platform says that the change to the policy of revenue tariff is to be made in such a way as not to injure industry, This is utterly impossible when we are on a protective basis, and it is conelusively shown to be so by the necessary effect of bills already intro duced and passed by the Democratic house for the purpose of making strides toward a revenue tariff. -...--.--,.
 Cost of Living and Payne Law.
 The statement has been widely circu- lated and has received considerable support from political opponents that the tariff actof 1909 is prominent fac tor in creating the high cost of living. This is not true, A careful >investiga- ton will show that the phenomenon of increased prices and cost of living is world wide in its extent and quite as much in evidence in other countries of advanced civilization and progress sive tendencies as in our own.
 Bitter complaints of the burden of increased prices and cost of living try, but even in countries of Asia and Africa. Disorder and even riots have occurred in several European cities be- cause of the unprecedented cost of food products. In our own country changes have been manifested without regard to lower or higher duties in the tariff act of 1909. Indeed. the most notable increase in prices has been in the case of products where no duties are imposed, and in some instances in which they were diminished or re- moved by the recent tariff act.
 Effect of Excessive Tariff.
 There is one respect in which high tariff rates may make for exorbitant prices. If the rate is higher than the difference between the cost of produe- ton here and abroad, then it tempts the manufacturers of this country to secure monopoly of the industry and to increase it's price as far as the ex- cessive tariff will permit. The danger may be avoided in two ways: First, by carefully adjusting the tariff on articles needing protection, so that the manufactures secures only enough pro- lection to pay the scale of high wages which obtains and ought to obtain in this country and secure a reasonable profit from the business. This may be done by the continuance of the tariff boards investigation into the facts, which will enable congress and the people to know what the tariff as to each schedule ought to be. The Amer jean public may rest assured that should the Republican party be restor- ed to power in all legislative branches all the schedules in the present tariff of which complaint is made will be subjected to investigation and report by competent and impartial tariff board and to the reduction or change which may he necessary to square the rates with the facts. e The other method of avoiding danger of excessive prices from excessive du' ties is to enforce the antitrust law against those wio combine to take ad
 vantage of the excessive tariff rates
 This brings me to the discussion of the Sherman act.
 The antitrust law was passed to pro vide against the organization and main tenance of combinations for the man ufacture and sale of commodities which through restraint of trade, either
 by contract and agreement or by va rious methods of unfair competition should suppress competition, establish 1 monopoly and control prices. The measure has been on the statute books l since 1890, and many times under con
 struction by the courts. but not untl l the litigation against the Standard O1 | company and against the American To sbacco company reached the, supreme I court did the statute receive an author