SCHOOL SLATES AND FLOUR BAGS.
The New York Times November 7 1887, p. 4, co.. 5.

We notice that Senator HISCOCK and other protectionist orators still fight shy of the Trust monopolies; the offspring of a protective system. The Senator has been urging the farmers to keep up the present tariff, because they "are most vitally interested." Why does he not defend before them the creation of such combinations as the Paper-Bag Trust, of which his friend, the Hon. JAMES ARKELL, is President? This Trust was recently organized at Canajoharie, with a capital of $2,000,000. The Boston Commercial Bulletin of the 5th inst. says:

"While the consolidation has made no move in the matter, its affairs as yet being too embryonic, a uniform price list based upon higher figures will soon appear. The class of bags that this price list most concerns is the large flour sacks which are largely used in the West. In the West comparatively little flour is bought is barrels, the trade preferring it in sacks."

The same journal asserts that the paper used for these bags is made of manila rope or jute butts. The duty on jute butts is $5 a ton; on manufactures of manila and jute; it is 35 per cent. ad valorem. The Tribune says that Congressman GEORGE WEST, of Ballston, one of the largest manufacturers of paper bags, makes a specialty of the bags used by grocers. He is "the controlling spirit" of an association or Trust, of which several other makers of such bags are members. The Tribute also speaks of the Arkell combination which was made to destroy competition and remarks that "this is only following the tendency of the times, which is leading everywhere to business consolidations." Mr. ARKELL tells the Tribune that such Trusts "are a sort of protective tariff on business," and even cites the example of the infamous Standard Oil Trust as evidence that they are beneficial to the people.

While the farmers are thinking about the flour-Bag Trust, the Lead Trust, and other monopolies formed under the shelter of high tariff rates to kill competition in a home market, from which competition from abroad is excluded by the tariff barrier, they should also take into consideration the new School-Slate Trust. Moreover, this is a Trust that deserves the attention not only of farmers, but also of people in other walks of life.

"The increase in the price of school slates that has just been ordered by the manufacturers' combination which controls the business in this country is the second advance that has been made within the last six months." This is from the Tribune, a paper which bas repeatedly defended a high protective tariff on the ground that it encourages in the home market competition which reduces prices to the home buyer. The School Slate Trust was recently organized. Early in May the prices were raised 12½ percent. Again, a week or two ago, they were raised about 5 per cent., and the abovementioned tariff organ says, that they "may go still higher."

The duty on imported slates and slate pencils is 30 per cent. ad valorem. Protected by this, the slate makers of this country unite and put up their prices, taxing the school children of the United States at their pleasure, for there is no one to undersell them at home and the duty excludes foreign-made slates. The Tribune asserts that "even if there were no protective tariff" on slates the Trust could defy foreign competition. Then let the tariff tax be taken off. Let the people have the benefits of competition from abroad, if they cannot have the advantages of competition in the home market.

Trust making is " the tendency of the times," as Mr. ARKELL Says. It is a tendency which the people will check in some way. It is manifested in so many branches of industry because with foreign competition excluded, the people are at the mercy of home manufacturers who unite to create monopolies and raise prices. The protectionist manufacturers who make Trusts are supplying revenue reformers with good ammunition in abundance.

HOME COMPETITION.
The New York Times Wednesday, December 28, 1887, p. 4, col. 3

The defenders of a system of taxation which has become oppressive and extortionate rather than protective are wont to talk loudly about the benefits yielded to the consumer by the competition of protected manufacturers in the home market. The tariff duty, they say, shuts out the foreign manufacturer, and the home manufacturers, not fearing competition from abroad, contend among themselves for the home trade, underselling each other and bidding against each other for consumers' favors, and thus bring prices down far below the importing point. For example, the Tribune of the 26th inst. said: "The consumer who opens his eyes will learn that he is not taxed by any protective duty that attains its purpose, because that purpose is permanent cheapness through home competition."

The consumer who opens his eyes will see that in many important "protected" industries home competition has been deliberately killed by the protected manufacturers. By Trusts, by syndicates, by combinations, by pools, by associations, manufacturers have successfully conspired to prevent competition and to withhold from consumers the benefits of it. In the case of at least one such Trust we have the Tribune's admission that the Trust's purpose is to keep prices up to the importing point -- that is, by monopoly power to compel consumers to pay for the protected product a price equal to the price of the imported product plus the duty on the same.

On Monday last we directed attention to certain protected industries in which competition has been killed by Trusts and combinations, pointing out how lead, sugar, rubber shoes, envelopes, school slates, paper bags, linseed oil, paving pitch, salt, cordage, and steel have been affected. There are many other industries in which combination has put an end to competition, but their condition in this respect is known to few outside of the ring, for there is still a semblance of competition to mislead the consumer.

Here is an example: We have before us a circular issued on the 17th ult. by the Table and Stair Oil Cloth Association. This is a pool of manufacturers. It is stated that the members "have paid into the association large sums of money, which are forfeitable on the violation by them of any of the provisions of the association. They have also bound all their salesmen and agents to maintain strictly the terms which they themselves have agreed to." Any member who violates any part of the agreement is liable to a fine of $500. This circular sets forth a list of prices fixed for the season from Dec 1, 1857, to May 31, 1888. These prices are per yard or piece. Purchasers (presumably wholesale dealers or middlemen) who shall prove that they have maintained these prices on all sales will receive from the pool commissioner a rebate of 15 or 17½ per cent. The purchaser must not sell to dealers who fail to keep up the price, and such dealers are to be punished by withholding goods from them. "While the association," says the circular, "will not reduce prices prior to June 1, 1888, they reserve to themselves the right to advance the same at any time without notice."

Although this is not a Trust in form, its purpose is that of a Trust, and its influence upon the trade is the same. We are informed that the price of oil cloths for stairs, tables, and shelves was advanced 65 per cent. when the combination was formed; also that the combination has shut up fourteen small mills in order to reduce production and make the monopoly more compact.

The tariff duty on oil cloths is 40 per cent. On oil cloth foundations or floor cloth canvas it is 40 per cent. With such a wall raised between them and foreign competition, the manufacturers throttle home competition and establish what is virtually a monopoly, raising prices at will, boycotting retail merchants who do not obey them, and exercising great power over jobbers by means of the rebate.

The Rubber Trust was mentioned in our list of Monday last. Late reports show that while the great rubber shoe factories were recently Trusted, the manufacture of gossamer rubber clothing has for a year been controlled by a combination. At the beginning "a uniform price list" was agreed upon, and production was reduced by concerted action. "Soon the prices," says the Boston Commercial Bulletin, "were still further advanced." The, people seem to have been deprived of the benefits of competition in this industry. The tariff duty on india rubber fabrics is 30 per cent.

When the consumer gets his eyes open he will learn how the tariff has enabled favored manufacturers to rig the market against him, and how sincere the partisan protectionists are who assure him that free competition in the home market under the shelter of the tariff wall reduces prices in obedience to a natural law of trade.

DENOUNCING THE TRUSTS
CONGRESS ASKED TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
A FEW FIGURES WHICH WILL PROVE OF INTEREST - WONDERFUL GROWTH OF MONOPOLIES.
The New York Times February 11, 1888, page 5, col. 1

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10.-The Committee on Manufactures, which is preparing the way for an investigation of trusts, held a meeting this morning, when Chairman Bacon and his associates considered a quantity of information already received in answer to the general invitations issued by the press to send such letters to the committee. Mr. Bacon and his colleagues are convinced last they must rely to a large extent for leading information upon the statements of persons who could not afford to give the information if their names were to be given to the public or to their employers. For that reason they intend to regard all communications to them concerning the internal management of trusts as confidential. The letters are coming in rapidly and are assisting materially in the work of organizing the inquiry. The Committee listened for an hour to an argument by Mr. Rayner of Maryland, whose bill in regard to the regulation of trusts is before the committee. In the course of his argument Mr. Rayner said that he had given a great deal of thought to the subject, and his bill was the result of careful preparation and in accordance with the principle laid down by all the authorities he could find upon the subject. "I desire," said Mr. Rayner, "to direct your attention to the following propositions: First, does this bill come within the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce between the States? Second, is the evil that it is intended to suppress one that demands legislative interference and extreme measures, and dues public policy demand the enactment of a law of this character?" Upon the first proposition Mr. Rayner made a learned argument and quoted authority after authority, from the case of Ogden against Gibbons, in ninth Wheaton, to the case of Texas against the Telegraph Company, in one hundred and fifth United States reports. "To show that wherever merchandise Is transported from one State into another Congress has the right, not only to regulate the transportation, but the sale thereof, and to prevent combinations of individuals or corporations from trammeling its sale, and may do whatever is necessary to promote its growth and insure unrestricted competition. He cited from Kent and Story and from the leading Supreme Court decisions. 'The Sates' he said, 'are powerless. Your Legislatures see the danger, but cannot avert it. Your local courts are without jurisdiction upon any known principles of the common law; and beyond any doubt Congress has the well-defined power to crush these anomalous growths upon our institutions.' Upon the second proposition Mr. Rayner said: 'There is no intelligent man in the country who is not in league with the monopolies that can have any doubt as to the propriety of the passage of a law of this character and of the necessity of prompt and decisive action. Will you delay,' he continued, 'a report upon this bill one moment longer in view of everything that you know upon the subject of these infamous combinations to bankrupt private enterprise, to depredate upon the business interests, and to plunder the people of this country? Why, Sir, there is not a day that some iniquitous trust of this sort is not springing into existence. You cannot invalidate a contract after it is once made, and unless you proceed quickly, they will meet you, one and all, with the defense of an ex post facto law. We are partners in guilt as long as we stand idly by and permit these conspiracies against the rights of our constituents to be consummated.

"What do want to Investigate? Whether these combinations exist? Why, every newspaper in this land is teeming with the proof. Do you want to find out whether they are a blessing to the community instead of a curse? Such a line of investigation would be absolutely puerile. You might as well investigate the subject as to whether larceny or highway robbery or bribery are a benefit or a detriment to the people. Do you want to give them time to come here and show by statistics that they are lowering instead of raising the prices of consumption, and that they are engaged in a mission of philanthropy instead of peculation? If that is so, then let Mr. Jacob Sharp have the right to show that when he bribed the representatives of the people he was a benefactor instead of a malefactor, and ought to receive the plaudits of his countrymen, because it was by reason of his bribery and corruption that a great benefit was conferred upon the people of New-York. They do bribe. they do corrupt, they do conspire to pilfer and oppress. They have never hesitated to buy Legislatures and courts whenever the occasion required it and the opportunity presented itself, and I point to yon the history of the Standard Oil Company in support of that fact, and of all the other trusts that are now following in its track and emulating its example.

"Do you know, my friends, the wealth of this monopoly to-day? One hundred and fifty millions, and still a growing! Do you know Its profits last year? Twanty-five millions of dollars! I have the figures here, and I hope you will examine them. Do you know with what amount of capital it started? Less than a million dollars! How did it acquire the other $149.000,000? By a system of highway robbery and crime such as no civilized country ought to permit or tolerate! Individual enterprise, honest competition, transportation lines, refineries, and pipe lines were all trampled to death under its merciless march to aggrandizement. Look at the Sugar Trust to-day. Do you want to investigate that? Summon the Havemeyers with their books. Ask them two questions: first, 'What was the value of their plant when they went into the Trust?' second. 'What are the profits that they are receiving out of it?' Why, the total plant of all the refineries only amounted to $16,000,000. To-day it is $60,000,000, and then, when you are done with the Standard Oil Company and the Cottonseed Oil Trust and the Sugar Trust, take up the Rubber Trust, with a capital of $50,000,000, and then, when you have done with that, take up the Lead Trust and the Linseed Oil Trust, and the Slate Trust, and the Oil cloth Trust, and the Salt Trust, and scores of others which are organizing daily with all the speed they can, in order to anticipate any action of Congress in the premises. I tell you Congress will have adjourned and another Congress will have met and adjourned before you will hardly have commenced the investigation. They will form trusts more quickly than yon can follow them. I assert the time has arrived for action. Amend my bill in any particular form you see fit. Any suggestion you can make I will be glad to avail myself of, but I appeal to you for speedy action. I have not the slightest interest in this matter, except the interest of the people.

The country is looking to Congress for relief, and the hour of deliverance is at hand, if you will only realize the magnitude of the subject before you, and listen to the voice of a suffering people resounding through the homes and business centres of this country, and through the medium of an enlightened press appealing to their representatives to rescue them from the clutches of the most dangerous monopolies that have ever raised their forms upon our soil."

A DEBATE ABOUT TRUSTS
SENATOR BECK USES "THE TIME'S" ARTICLES TO GOOD ADVANTAGE.
The New York Times March 2, 1888, p. 2, c. 6.

WASHINGTON, March 1.-When the debate on the Dependent Pensions bill was resumed in the Senate to-day Mr. Beck, speaking to Mr. Wilson's amendment, said he understood the meaning of the amendment to be that every man who served in the late war or to the war with Mexico, or in any Indian war, and who was suffering under the "infirmities of age" would be entitled to a pension of $12 a month. He supposed that every man over 50 or 60 years of age would consider himself as suffering from the "infirmities of age." Could the Senator from Iowa or any other Senator guess how much money that amendment, if adopted, would take out of the Treasury? He ventured to assert that $500,000,000 would not half cover the amount of expenditure under it. There was no use, he said. in talking of a surplus in the Treasury. This bill would settle that for all time to come. The moment that Congress attempted to pension all men who became old the country would be bankrupted unless the taxes were doubled trebled, and quadrupled. The protected robber baron monopolists could not have drawn a bill in their own interest more adroitly than this bill was drawn. There were many men in the Senate Chamber who were many times millionaires and they had adjusted taxation so that not one of them paid more taxes than his liveried coachmen, and they did not intend to have it adjusted differently. A senator paid 40 cents per gallon on the Sherry and Madeira which he drank, while his coachmen had to pay 300 per cent. on his whisky. The tax on coarse tobacco was more than that on the finest cigars, and that on plain blankets twice as much as that on fine blankets.

Mr. Plumb asked Mr. Beck whether he was in favor of taking the tax off whisky.

Mr. Beck replied that there was no more legitimate tax than that imposed on whisky and tobacco, but did any of the millionaire Senators drink whisky?  Not one of them, except perhaps the Senator Kansas. [Laughter.] He asserted that the "patriotic" Senator on the other side was seeking to take all the money out of the Treasury so that the present condition of things might remain and the taxes be kept up or increased. He had no doubt that every Republican senator would vote to repeal all taxes which went direct into the Treasury (like the tax on whisky) in order to keep up the taxes only one-third of which wont into the Treasury, while the other two-thirds went into the pockets of the manufacturers. Discussing the matter of trusts and combinations as the result of a high protective tariff, he referred to the articles In THE NEW-YORK TIMES and other papers on that subject. After several questions and remarks on the part of Mr. Blair, Mr. Beck referred to the Senator from New-Hampshire as an advocate of trusts anti combinations.

"That is putting me in a false position," exclaimed Mr. Blair, "They are abhorrent to me; they are malicious; they are destructive of the good of the country, and they ought to be destroyed."

"That is an important admission," said Mr. Beck; "but now can they be destroyed?  By reducing the tariff, which alone makes them possible."

Mr. Sherman reminded Mr. Beck that there were trusts which had no connection with the tariff, such as oil trusts, whisky trusts, and cottonseed trusts.

Mr. Beck admitted that there were some trusts outside of the tariff, but said that they existed wherever a monopoly grew so large that it could exist independent of the tariff. Mr. Beck sent to the clerk's desk and had read a long article in THE NEW-YORK TIMES on the steel rail combination.

Mr. Sherman remarked, after the reading was finished, that that was not a trust at all.

Mr. Beck   Well, call it a pool; call it a combine.

Mr. Sherman remarked that such had always existed. He was opposed to all these trusts, and to all unlawful combinations. But if the Senator from Kentucky would examine the matter patiently and not be in so much of a hurry he would find that the great objectionable trusts of the country were either combinations in domestic articles where there was no foreign competition, (as in cottonseed, whisky, and oil) or else were combinations of a few people engaged in foreign trade in a particular article.

Mr. Beck inquired whether the Senator from Ohio would like to hear the article on the copper trust read.

Mr. Sherman said that he had no objection, but that trust was made by people to several countries.

Mr. Beck said he would not take up time to having it read; but he would have all the articles about trusts incorporated in his speech.