Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 12, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 April 1890 — Trusts and the Tariff. [ARTICLE]

Trusts and the Tariff.

In the Senate debate on trusts Senator Vest gave an interesting list of trusts, and showed the dependence of these monopolies in each oase he named upon tariff duties excluding competition from abroad. 1. The steel rail trust, buttressed by a tariff tax of sl7 per ton. 2. The nail trust, by a tariff tax of $1.25 per 100 pounds. 3. The iron nut aud washer trust, by a tax of $2 per 100 pounds. 4. The barbed fence wire trust, by a tax of 60 cents per 100 pounds. 5. The copper trust, by a tax of $2.50 per 100 pounds. 6. The lead true*, by a tax of $1.50 per 100 pounds. 7. The slate pencil trust, by a tax of 30 per cent. 8. The nickel trust, by a tax of sls per 100 pounds. 9. The zinc trust, by a tax of $2.50 per 100 pounds. 10. The sugar trust, by a tax of $2 per 100 pounds. 11. The oil cloth trust, by a tax of 40 per cent. 12. 'ihe jute bag trust, by a tax of 40 per cent. 13. The cordage trust, by a tax of 30 per cent.

14. The paper envelope trust, by a tax of 25 per cent. 15. Ihe gutta percha trust, by a tax of 35 per cent. 16. The castor oil trust, by a tax of 80 cents per gallon. 17. The linseed oil trast, by a tax of 25 cents per gallon. 18. The cottonseed oil trust, by a tax of 25 cents per gallon. 19. The borax trust, by a tax of $5 per 109 pounds. t 2J. The ultramarine trust, by a tax of $5 per 100 pounds. Senator Sherman added to this list the match trust, at the head of which is Gen. Alger, of Michigan, the Standard Oil trust, and various grain trusts. In the case of Gen. Alger’s match trust, retches being nowadays aB much a necessary of life as broad, Senator Sherman quoted from the decision of a Michigan court: “It appears from the testimony that the Diamond Match Company was organized for the purpose of controlling the manufacture and trade in matches in the United States and Canada. The object was to get all the manufacturers of matches in the United States to enter into a combination and agreement by which the manufacture and output of all match factories should be controlled by the Diamond Match Company. Those manufacturers who would not enter into the scheme were to be bought out, those who proposed to engage in the business were to be bought off, and a strict watch was to be exercised to discover any person who proposedfto engage in such business and he was to be prevented if possible. “All who eiitered into the combination and all who were bought off w ere required to onter into bonds to the Diamond Match Company that they would not directly or indirectly engage in the manufacture or sale of friction matches, nor aid nor assist nor encourage any one else in said business where by doingso it might conflict with the business interest or diminish the sales or lessen the profits of the Diamond Match Company. These restrictions varied in individual cases as to the time it was to continue, from ten to twenty years. Thirty-one manufacturers, being substantially all the factories where matches were made in the United States, either went into the combination or were purchased by the Diamond Match Company, and out of this number a’l were closed except about thirteen. “Gen. Alger was a witness in the case and was asked by his counsel the following question: ‘it appears that during the years 1881 and 1882 large sums of money were expended to keep njen out of the match business, remove Competition, buy machinery and patents, and in some instances purchase other matoh factories. I will ask you to state the reasons, if any there are, why those sums should not be treated as an expense of the business and charged off from this account.’ “ ‘To which he replied: 'Because the price of matches was kept up to correspond so as to pay these expenses and make large dividends above what could have been made had those factories been in the market to compete with the business.’ “It also appears from the testimony of Gen. Alger that the organization of the Diamond Match Compauy was in a measure due to his exertions. ” Monopolies and trusts strike always at the necessaries of life, and the articles required and used by the mass pf the people. Thus in the Republican tariff, common, coarse blankets and woolen goods always be »r a much higher duty than the fine goods used by the rich, and this discrimination runs through the whole of the Allison bill and its successor, the McKinley bill. Both these bills tax the poor much more heavily than the rich. —New York Herald.