Democratic Sentinel, Volume 14, Number 38, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 October 1890 — LIKE KILKENNY CATS. [ARTICLE]

LIKE KILKENNY CATS.

TRUSTS AND COMBINATIONS DEVOUR 'EACH OTHER. The Oilcloth Men Want to Renew Their “Ajreement”-Gi*ound Down i.y Other Trusts They Tarn Upon the Consumer — Trusts as the Outcome of Protection. Protected manufacturers make common cause with each other, and stand shoulder to shoulder before the Ways and Means ■Committee at Washington, fighting for their common welfare. This is not the •case in their business relations, in their xl&ily course of trade. In the business world one trust feeds upon another, just as the big fishes in the sea feed upon the small fish. An example of this is seen in the Linseed Oil Trust and the combination of oil-cloth manufacturers. During the hearings before the McKinley committee last winter, Mr. G. IV. Blabon, of Phila•delphia, a representative of the oil-cloth and linoleum manufacturers, made this .statement: “Linseed oil has advanced largely within the last eighteen months, and white lead also. That is the, result •of cpmbinations and trusts. ” Also: “We rgot along very nicely, however, and made a fair return in profits until this late advance in the prices of oil and white lead.” Hero Mr. McMillin, of Tennessee, asked; “Was that advance caused by trusts?” to which Mr. Blabon answered, •“Yes; trusts that have come to stay.” This looked very bad; it looked as if the linseed oil trust and the white lead trust wore preying upon a number of firms which were struggling each separately with its hard conditions. It now turns out that this was not the case at all. Those who were being preyed upon •were also In a combination to prey upon their consumers. Not long p,go a prominent Philadelphia (paper printed the following piece of mews: “Since the agreement among the ■oil-doth manufacturers for the regulation of trade and prices came to an end ■some time ago, it is said that there has J>een very active fighting for business on all hands, with heavy cutting of rates. To stop this practice prominent manufacturers have recently been considering numerous expedients, and it has been suggested that an oil-cloth clearing--house be formed. The idea is that this -body should be controlled by a board of •directors, appointed by the manufacturers, who would receive and concentrate information on the state of trade, and -fix prices with the consent of a majority of manufacturers.” This paper went on ■to state that prominent manufacturers, among whom was this same G. W. Blabon, were “anxious to adopt some plan of harmony.” Their old agreement for tho “regulation of trade and prices,” which was tin force at the very time when Blabon was before the committee, had evidently proved more profitable to them than the •cutting of rates; and hence the determination to have some more “harmony.” Mr. Blabon’s tale before the McKinley •committee was calculated to excite pity. Between the upper and the nether millstones of two grinding monopolies like •the Linseed Oil Trust and the White Lead Trust he had a claim upon tho sympathies of all those who take the side •of the weak and oppressed against the strong ones who would ride rough-shod •over them. But now that it is seen that Mr. Blabon himself was adopting the same trust methods to get higher prices •out of tho consumers, who cau waste sympathy on him? But it is not alone in trusts that this system of greed reigns in trade. Trusts (Protect themselves; and in order to do this the individual members of a trust are loyal to one another, to some extent •at least, and they stick together so far •as pressure "tan be brought to bear to enforce their regulations. We have seen •how trusts treat each other, and if we are to believe the protectionist papers, the same system of general hoggishness prevails as between individuals in trade. On this subject the New York Journal •of Commerce says: “In this country, above -all others, tho , greed that is envious of another’s success will insist upon sharing in the spoils.” And from this fact it •draws the conclusion that American manufacturers have suffered more from •home than from foreign competition. The difference between American and foreign manufacturers is thus stated: “In •some foreign lands a man may discover a good thing, out of which he is reaping a very large profit, and if he is quiet and •unobtrusive may keep the business to •himself for a long time until he has acquired an ample fortune. But in this •country the noople like the greedy birds, and if one picks up more than can -be swallowed at once the rest of tho flock seek to force a division of the mouthtful.”

Commenting upon this the New York Dry Goods Economist , another protectionist paper, says; “We have more than ■once commented upon this same mekm■choly fact. Where ideas are not protected by patents and sometimes where they are, outside rivals invade a neighbor’s territory without compunction, and the result very often is a cut-throat comipotition which is fatal to both. If a man ■develops a bright idea he should have the benefit of it. There should bo a •courtesy in the trade that supplemented ■statutory limitations. ” All will conceive the point made here, that manufacturers have a right to their inventions and improvements. A habit •of infringing on the rights of others is, however, only a natural outgrowth of •our protective tariff system. Our manufacturers have been thoroughly schooled in the protectionist notion that they have a right to prey upon people in other forms of industry. What wonder, then, that they turn around and prey upon ■each other? What wonder, too, that this -system of preying upon each other should go on until they eall a halt and “pool their issues?” In other words, they form a trust, agreeing to prey upon each •other no more, but to unite in a common scheme for preying upon the consumer alone. Is not this the natural outcome of protection? The, Government gives some •men the right to sell to others at an artificially increased price. This increased price becomes like swill in the trough—the hungry pigs crowd around it and the biggest and strongest fight the weakest ones away, then fight among themselves till peace becomes a necessity ■again in order to satisfy their hunger. That sharp rivalry of trade which we •call competition is necessary; competition is the life of trade. Protection, 'however, tends directly' to defeat competition. True, it may stimulate competition for a time; but the false notion •hat it engenders, that the protected individuals have a moral right to the home market with exemption from competition, and have a moral right thus to charge the community increased price* .for their products, leads the end to

the defeat of the very ends that tho pro tectionlsjts claim to have in view. Protection ends logically in trusts, for self interest is the law which rules in trade and must rule. The function of govern ment is simply to keep this self-interest within the bounds of justice—that is, to prevent one man from pushing the pursuit of his self-interest to the point where the next man’s just and lawful interest is infringed upon. But if the Government itself takes* a hand for tho very opposite purpose of giving some men the right to do just that thing, It is the most natural thing in tho world that such men should combine and stifle competition when competition has rendered their power to trespass upon the rights of others less effective and profitable than it was before. That trusts are thus the natural outcome of protection has been seen and acknowledged by the President of the sugar trust, who said last winter: “The great cry of one of the great parties is for protection—that is, they cry for it loudly during campaigns. But when we proceed to give ourselves some protection a howl is raised. Thoy demand protection for the industries. When an industry protects itself it is said that it is illegal.” Hence it comes to pass that protection has made our country a land of trusts as no other land is, and the great activity during the past several months is a striking commentary on McKinley’s famous saying: “We want no return to cheap times in our own country.” McKinley Is beating the bush in behalf of the trusts, and they are simply getting ready to bay their game.