Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 March 1894 — THE SUGAR TRUST. [ARTICLE]

THE SUGAR TRUST.

The Heed and Center of Corruption in Congress. The New York Herald recently contained an exhaustive article on the sugar trust—lts past history; Its methods of corrupting Congress; its enormous profits; its big dividends on watered stock; its slavish treatment of labor, mostly imported Huns and Poles; its defiance of anti-trust laws: its impudent demand for protection; its many false statements, etc. Tne following is a part of the introduction and of the conclusion of this interesting article: Ugly rumors of scandalous proceedings at Washington have been altogether too numerous of late. Worst of all, they seem to be well founded. When the corrupting influences are exposed to the public, as they are now partly exposed to many at Washington, It will be seen that one great source of poison is the sugar trust. Back of the combine of “oonservatlves” —Democrats for revenue—is the sugar trust. Back of the protection to coal, iron ore, raw sugar, collars and cuffs and other local industries will be found the skillful hand of the greedy, powerful and unscrupulous sugar trust. Back of the move to defeat the income tax —the most popular feature of the Wilson bill—is the cunning hand of the sugar trust It may be true some of the so-called “conservatives” would have made a fair and honest effort to secure increased duties on articles in their particular States; but without a more potent cause they would not have formed a Senatorial combine or pool ostensibly in the interests of certain of their protected constituents, but virtually to intrigue in the interests of the sugar trust: 1. To defeat, if possible, all tariff legislation, ana thus leave the trust in possession of its protection of one-half cent, per pound duty on refined sugar —worth about $20,000,000 a year. 2. To delay action as long as possible —every month’s delay being worth more than $1,000,000 to the trust. 3. To substitute a protective duty on sugar, like that now before the ’ full Senate Committee, instead of the free sugar of the Wilson bilk It is evident that a tariff bill must be passed, and this substitute—worth rom $6,000,000 to $10,000,000 a year to the trust —is to be forced through, if possible. The “conservatives” are bound together for these purposes. Their leaders have had understandings with Havemeyer, Searles, and other sugar trust magnates, who have established temporary headquarters at Washington. Not only are the funds of the trust at the disposal of these leaders, but unusual opportunities for investments in sugar tijust stocks are open to the leaders and their friends. If one of these Senators has a half million to invest, and wants to see it grow in afew days to a million, he can obtain a tip from those able and willing to make it a “sure thing.” It was asserted by prominent members of the House, before the bill had emerged from the Ways and Means Committee, that the sugar trust owned at least one of the committee, and that its interests would not suffer greatly. This proved true; the duty on refined sugar—all unnecessary for protective and ineffectual for revenue purposes—was reduced only from i to t cents per pound. But so great was the popular demand for free sugar and so generally hated was the trust that Warner’s amendment, making all sugar free, went through the House like greased lightning. While this amendment was pending Dick Croker went to Washington. During this time Congressmen were flooded by telegrams from wholesale grocers (subsidized by rebates from the sugar trust), asking for a duty on refined sugars. The clever officers of the Sugar Trust discerned several days before the final Vote was taken in the House that they would lose their case there, and they turned their attention to the Senate, where a few hold the balance of power and where the field of investment was much more promising. They were not deceived. They found both men and conditions favorable. By uniting with the lesser protected trusts and monopolies, in which most of the susceptible Senators were interested, they found it easy to bargain for- the services of the “conservatives. ” It is said to be a fact that these Senators have been so zealous and faithful they have neglected their own local interests to do work for the trust. Out of these conditions have come the ugly rumors of Senate tips, of Senators speculating in sugar stocks, of calls for investigation in the Senate, and of corruption never equaled in our national halls—except, of course, in 1890, when McKinley permitted the trusts to walk up and help themselves at the public trough. **»»** We have seen that the sugar trust can refine sugar more cheaply than it is refined anywhere else; that it has by far the largest and best equipped refineries in tne world; that it pays less for labor per product than refiners in any other country; that it employs

chiefly imported Huns and Poles, and treats them in a most degraded, slavish manner: that it is paying enormous dividends on highly watered capital; that there is no justification for protecting it because of export bounties in Europe or for any other reason: that it has been a chief source of bribery and corruption in our legislative, executive and judicial halls; that it has a complete monopoly in this country, and is most greedy and exacting in its demands; and that it is a constant violator of Federal and State anti-trust laws. The corrupt Senate combine may force the present Democratic administration to accommodate this great robber, but an outraged people will soon have their say in the matter. “Conservatives,” stand from under! Claim Their Share. The striking Trenton potters have put forth a reply to the statements recently made by the employers in regard to wages. It consists mainly of a denial, with specifications, that wages could actually be earned to the amount asserted by the manufacturers. Which, ’party to the controversy is right on this point we cannot prose’s to say, but we do say that the strikers are proceeding strictly in accordance with the latest theory of protection when they say: “The bosses make a complete somersault and jump right out of the potting business, and say our wages would compare favorably with the earnings of men in other trades. Gentlemen, we are potters, and we propose to mind our own business. The Government gives to the potting industry a high protective tariff, and we claim a right to a full share of that protection. ” That is precisely in conformity with the doctrine of protection and wages as laid down by Thomas B. Reed in his debate with Mr. Cockran. The tariff is to give extra profits to manufacturers. It would give higher wages directly to workingmen if it could, but as it cannot it deposits with manufacturers a sum for the workingman’s benefit, which the latter can get hold of in just one way. and that is by getting up a strong labor union and going on strike. The old theory was that the manufacturer would, out of pure patriotism and benevolence, turn over his extra profits to the laboring man; but a wider experience has convinced Mr. Reed, and) apparently the Trenton operatives, that the manufacturer will not give up a cent on his tariff subsidy unless) driven to it by strikes and boycotts.— New York Evening Post.

“ Increase In Business.*’ Our neighbor, the Tribune, having pointed out the proofs of an “increase in business," hastens to assure its readers that the facts reported—which, it admits, are “encouraging”—are strictly in accordance with its theory that universal calamity is impending. “The expectation prevails,” says our neighbor, “that the tariff bill will pass in any case, and will be followed by disastrous consequences, but business men and manufacturers are hastening all the more for that reason to get what business they can completed before the reverse arrives.” Some of them, we notice, are enlarging their works in order that they may have more to lose in the coming crash. The Tribune of the same date announces that a steel plant in Johnstown, Pa., is to be removed at once to Cleveland, where the investment is to be increased to $3,000,000 by enlargements and the addition of new departments. This is one of the manufacturing companies that are “hastening to get what business they can completed before the reverse arrives.”—New York Times. An Anarchistic Suggestion. The course of the tariff discussion in the Senate during the past week does not tend to increase popular respect or affection for our upper house. The selfishness, dissensions, and apparent disregard of public needs which this august body is exhibiting are irritating and humiliating. If a keg of dynamite were placed under the Senate wing with a one-hour fuse attached, and these noble Solons locked into their chamber with a notification that they would be let out when they voted on a tariff bill, and not before, there Would be harmony and action with great promptness. But a little thing like the injury to commerce resulting from uncertainty and delay is entirely inadequate to quicken their gait.—Dry Goods Economist. Growing Sensitive. Senators are growing very sensitive all of a sudden to newspaper criticism. We wish we could believe that this was a healthy sign. But when the gentlemen get so excited at being denounced as “obstructionists”—which they are—and rest so quietly under the charge of having made money in Wall street out of their positions, the country will not, we think, be much impressed with their show of Virtue.— Indianapolis News. Sugar in the Senate. It takes some sand for a Senator to stand up and explain his ventures iq sugar.—St. Louis Post-Dispatch. ilf Mr. Pfeffer doesn't look out ha will violate the cordiality of Sanatoria courtesy.—Baltimore American.

MUSICAL DOGS. A wonderful story of a French musical critic is related by persons who Crofess to have been acquainted with im, and who have seen him in attendance on musical performances. He was a dog, and his name in public was Parade; whether he had a different name at home was never known. At the beginning of the French Revolution he went every day to the military parade in front of the Tuileries Palace. He marched with the musicians, halted with them, listened knowingly to their performances, and after the parade disappeared, to return promptly at parade time the next day. Gradually the musicians became attached to this devoted listener. They named him Parade, and one or another of them always invited him to dinner. He accepted the invitation, and was a pleasant guest. It was discovered that after dinner he always attended the theatre, where he seated himself calmly in the corner of the orchestra and listened critically to the music. If a new piece was being played he noted it instantly, and paid the strictest attention. If the piece had fine, melodious passages he showed his Eoy to the best of his doggish ability; »ut if the piece was ordinary and uninteresting he yawned, stared about the theatre and unmistakably expressed his disapproval. Another very curious story of a canine musical ear is told of a London organ grinder’s dog. The organ grinder was blind and aged, and the dog used to lead him about. One night, after a hard day's work, the old man and his faithful companion lay down to sleep with the organ beside them. They slept soundly, and when they awoke the organ was gone. They were in despair. Their means of earning a living was gone. But the dog led the old man through the streets where he had been accustomed to play, and the persons who had given him alms before continued to befriend him, so that the loss of the organ proved not so bad after all. Weeks went by. One day the old man heard a hand organ played a few feet from him. It reminded him of his lost instrument, but he paid no special attention to it. Hand organs were common in London, and he had heard them often. Not so the dog. He showed signs of great excitement, barked violently and led his master in the direction of the organ. He sprang at the robber’s throat, dragged him away from the stolen organ and led his master eagerly to it, with expressions of recognition and delight. —[Manchester (England) Times.

GRANDMA’S SUNDAY STORY.

“Tell us a story, grandma,” said Ray, as the children came trooping in from the Junior Endeavor meeting one bright Sunday afternoon. “Yes, grandma, please do,” said twelve-year-old Maud, who has not outgrown her love for stories. “You might tell us a Sunday story —one with a moral—if you don’t like to tell other kinds to-day,” said Belle. They knew grandma’s views about keeping the Lord's day. She was sitting with her Bible in her lap reading her favorite chapter when they came in. She took her spectacles off, wiped them carefully, and said : “I think I will tell you how my Uncle John and Aunt Betsy worked On Sunday.” “Worked on Sunday! Oh, grandma I” the children all cried in chorus. “Yes, dears,” said grandma, with a smile at their looks of horror. “We did not have calendars with large figures in every room when I was a child. Usually there was but one almanac, and that hung high out of reach of ihe children’s meddlesome fingers. The days were all very much alike, all filled with hard work, and sometimes we forgot the day of the week. That was the trouble at Uncle John’s. “It was In com-planting time, and they were anxious to finish planting, so Uncle John and the children started out early one bright May morning. Aunt Betsy put on the kettle of water and collected the soiled clothes for the week’s washing. “She said to little Sarah, who was too small to go to the field: ‘I never liked to wash on Saturday, but the Sris have been so busy helping their ther drop com that they couldn’t help about the washing. They will be through planting the west field by noon, and the sun is so bright the

clothes will be ready for them to iron after dinner.* * ‘Aunt Betsy sat down by the little wheel to spin while the water was heating. “She was spinning and singing when a shadow fell across her work; looking up, she saw neighbor Bradley standing in the door. “Aunt Betsy greeted him with a cordial ‘Good morning!’gave him a chair, then went to spinning again. She noticed that he wore his best suit of brow jeans, and wondered why he was so dressed up on a week-day. “Mr. Bradley seemed uneasy, and fidgeted in his chair as Aunt Betsy chattered avtey. He asked for Uncle John, and being told that he and the girls were finishing up the west field, symptoms of nervousness grew worse, and at last he stammered out: ‘Aunty Betsy, didn’t—didn’t you know it was Sunday?’ “Aunt Betsy started up in dismay, upsetting her wheel and almost crying in her mortification; but it was no time for tears. There was Uncle John to be brought to the house before the people passed on the way to church. “It would never do to blow the horn, so Aunt Betsy started to the field to tell them. When she was near enough she called out, ‘John, it is Sunday, ’ and he dropped his hoe as quickly as if someone had struck him. “It was a solemn little procession that marched back to the house, and the west field was not finished that day.” After grandma had finished her story, six-year-old Ralph said; “I didn’t see any moral.” And grandma patted his curly head as she answered reverently: “Remember the Lord’s day and keep it holy.”—[Christian Standard.