Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 37, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 October 1908 — CURE FOR THE TBUSTS [ARTICLE]

CURE FOR THE TBUSTS

Would a Trial of “Free List” Remedy Kill Industry? MR. TAFT’S MEMORY SHORT. First Says That He Argues For Removal of “Excessive Rates,’’ Then Rsverts to Old Stand Pat Theory. Trust Protection Is Pure Graft. In Mr. Taft’s speech of acceptance be said:

“The tariff iu a'number of schedules exceeds the difference between the cost of production of such articles abroad and at home, including a reasonable profit to the American producer. The excess over that difference serves no useful purpose, but offers a temptation to those who would monopolize the production and sale of such articles in this country to profit by the excessive rate.” In Mr. Taffs “canned speech” contrasting the Republican and Democratic remedies for trusts as we take it off the phonographic record he commends the Republican plan to control “illegal trusts” with “injunctive process” and “criminal prosecution,” but condemns the Democratic plan of putting trust produced articles on the free list and thus removing the tariff wall which permits many trusts to charge monopoly prices. Mr. Taft seems to have forgotten the statement quoted above from his speech of acceptance dhat too high duties tempt trusts—“those who would monopolize production and sale.” He now reverts to the old stand pat theory that an ounce of cure Is worth a pound of prevention. He would continue the temptation of high duties and then enjoin and prosecute those who yield to the temptation. This Is the more popular theory among the trusts, for if they are continually putting the swag ln|p their pockets through high duties they will gladly risk “injunctions” and “prosecutions." They care as jpuch about them as a dog cares about mosquitoes when he is devouring an ample roast. In the “canned speech” Mr. Taft says, referring to the putting of trust products on the free llstt “If such a course would be utterly destructive of their business, as is Intended, it would destroy not only the trusts, but all their smaller competitors.” He deprecates the enormous loss to capital and the lack of employment for labor which would follow the destruction of trusts and the elimination of the wealth they represent from the productive capital of the country. If Mr. Taft will turn to his acceptance speech he will find authority for the conclusion that removing “excessive rates” of duty will not destroy any Industry, but will only destroy its “trust” or monopolistic character and make It a legitimate business. His statement that the Democratic plan “is Intended” to be “utterly destructive of the business” of the trusts is entirely without warrant. The putting of a trust product on the free list could have no destructive tendency so far as honest, not monopolistic, industry is concerned unless it is true that the trust’s business cannot be reasonably successful without the aid of a tariff duty. Can Mr. Taft mention a single trust which would have to go out of business If its product were on the free list? Is It not notorious that their protection Is pure graft? Would it be a concern like the steel trust, the oil trust or the borax trust, which are known to sell their products abroad In large quantities at much lower price* than they force Americans to pay? Which one of the scores of trusts that export their products and compete successfully with foreigners In foreign markets wm be named as unable to compete against the goods of the same foreigners sent freely to the United States? Until It Is shown that such • case would arise it is Idle to talk of the elimination of capital from industry or the throwing of workmen out of employment. The putting of trust products on the free list would reduce the monopoly prices of sugar, salt, luAber, steel, iron, machinery, clothing, shoes, coal, glassware, paluts, paper, cutlery, tinware and many other articles to a more reasonable figure without Injury to any Interest except monopoly. To remove the “temptation to monopoly” is more effective than to enjoin men from yielding or to prosecute them after they have yielded.

JESSE F. ORTON.