Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 18, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 May 1894 — SURRENDER TO THE TRUST. [ARTICLE]

SURRENDER TO THE TRUST.

Senator* Shamefully Capitulate to a Grasping Octopus. In the proposed amendment to the tariff bill the sugar trust seems to have obtained all that it wants, or at least all that it can expect to get without creating such a scandal ■as would put a violent end to its relations with certain Senators. These Senators, having now gained for the trust the last possible concession, are willing to vote for the reduction of taxes on necessaries of life other than sugar. This shameful surrender to the sugar trust has been brought about by three classes in the Senate. First—The Senators who have a direct pecuniary interest in sugar speculation. It is only necessary to point to the quotations of the price of sugar trust stock on two occasions to indicate how the purchase of votes has been made. Just before the report of the bill to the Senata, and again within the last few days, the price of these securities rose enormously. The rise must have been on information from the Senate chamber. Second—Senators have been weakly influenced to consent to these concessions by reminders of contributions to compaign funds. In this class Republicans as well as Democrats are included, for the trust impartially made its campaign contributions to both parties. , Third—There have been enough disgusted Democrats to make up the number necessary to carry out the trade. These men have been made hopeless by the corrupting presence of the trust, and by the evident inability of honest tariff reformers to overcome its wiles and its “arguments.” They have yielded in order to pass a bill putting an end to some of the most odious features of McKinleyism. They have taken an eighth of a loaf rather than go without bread. In the whole history of protectionism nothing has happened so humiliating to Congress as this triumph of the sugar trust, in its bold-faced and cynical effort to tax the people millions of dollars for iteown enrichment, through the aid of Senators who are sworn to legislate for the general welfare, but who are the willing and sometimes the corrupt tools of this monopoly.—New York World.

A Voice from Ohio. In the special Congressional election in the Third Ohio District, Sorg, Democrat, won by 2,000 or 3,000 majority, where McKinley last year had about 500 majority. This a more significant figure, in a special election, than was Houk’s plurality of 4,316 in 1892, when a Presidential election was on. It is a peculiarly suggestive victory in many ways. The election was held in McKinley’s own State, where, if anywhere, McKinley ism should have gained adherents. By aelibarate choice of the Republicans themselves the contest was waged upon the tariff as the sole issue. There was made a special and direct appeal to the voters of the district to say what they now think of that tariff-reform policy for which they voted in 1892. There was a peculiarly good opportunity for them to make manifest any change of mind that may have come to them. Their reply to this appeal is that they have not changed their minds, that they are oven more strongly than before determined that the iniquitous McKinley system of taxation shall give place to a more equitable distribution of the public burdens. As this is the only election that has been contested this year upon that direct issue its result is unusually encouraging. In that result the dallying Senate has a hint of what its course should be if the majority there care to retain control of the Government in their party’s handa This victory was won at the precise time when there was greatest confidence felt in the early passage of the Wilson bilk It suggests the good results that are promised for November if that bill is actually made law without further delay.

Wages of suit Weavers. One proper reform in the relation between the silk manufacturers and weavers is indicated by she interviews which we publish. Certain manufacturers nut forward in their statements for publication the fact that they are ready to pay the weavers from $3 to 84 a day. Now this sounds very liberal, and tends to destroy all sympathy with the operatives among those who are not familiar with the methods of the mill, but when it is understood that the weaver, who is now so unaccountably refusing “83 or„s4 a day,” is obliged to prepare his own loom for work for nothing, and that this operation may consume many weeks in a year, it will be seen that the workman is not so unreasonable as would appear from the manufacturer's statement, and !a very different light is thrown upon his present course in regard to wages. It will be observed that one of the weavers, whose interview we print, states that the average wages in Paterson for 1893 amounted to $5 a week, when the loom fixing and the long waits between work are considered, which is a very different thing from the spectacular compensation which these manufacturers propose as though it were for steady employment. The weaver whom we quote states that the wages under the schedule urged by the men would not yield more than from sll to sl3 a week—-surely notan exorbitant rate for highly skilled labor in a land where nigh protective duties are imposed entirely on the workingman's account!—Dry"Goods Economist. Rich Men and Coxeylsm. Those are good, strong, brave words that Secretary Herbert has spoken on the subject of Coxeyism, and they are very timely ones, it is most unfortunate, at this time especially, that the rich men of the country are manifest-

Ing an indisposition to bear their fair share of the public burdens. Not only are they struggling to perpetuate a system of taxation which makes of them a favored class, enriching them at the expense of the people’s prosperity, but they are determinedly opposing the imposition of a very small tax upon their superfluous incomes at a time when there are multitudes of taxpayers unable to get any incomes at all. The rich men of the country are losing a great opportunity fend taking a wholly needless risk. They are refusing the chance to disarm the forces of discontent They are deliberately affronting poverty by objecting to pay their part of taxes that bear heavily upon the people, though the part they are asked to near is one so easy that the burden would hardly be felt’at all. They are creating in men’s minds a rankling sense of injustice. They are playing into the hands of the vicious theorists who preach Socialism and worse. They are committing a stupendous blunder.—New York World.

Freedom a Misnomer. Mr. Bryan, of Nebraska, has been making a point against the New England sectionalists who make political capital out of the activity of Southern and Western Congressmen in tariff reform. “They have no Lowells in the South and West, ” say the New England Republicans,chorusing after Reea. Mr. Bryan proceeds to show that the people of the West and South are the more likely to exert their intelligence boldly and fearlessly by not living in Dowells and Lynns. In Lowell there are 14,836 families occupying homes. Only 14 per cent, own unincumbered homes. The percentage in Lynn is 16. In Fall River only 9 per cent, own free homes. In Holyoke the percentage is between 6 and 7 per cent. So, when it comes to freeholders, the Massachusetts supply is light, and in the typical manufacturing towns the population is evidently dependent upon weekly wages for means to keep roofs over the heads of families. Is this a condition which develops courage to speak and act the trutn? Is it not rather one in which the few rich will dominate the many dependent? Between 1,000 Western farmers and 1,000 Lowell operatives, where would anybody look for outspoken American thought?—St. Louis Republic.

Retire the Criminal Senators. The Kansas City Times (Dem.) hails with approval the announcement that the Senate majority have come to an understanding as to the tariff bill, but it says: “The fact that a compromise has been effected does not excuse certain Senators for the treachery to the party that made the compromise necessary. These men, for selfish rea-I sone, betrayed an inclination to dishonor the party and perpetuate admitted evils. That is not only crime against rarty discipline, but against the people, whose burdens are already too onerous to bear. The Senators miilty of such offenses ought to be condemned to early and permanent retirement.” Who Will Explain? If a man tells you that protection increases wages, ask him to explain why it is that free trade England pays higher wages to-day than during the days of her protective policy. Ask him why it is that she pays higher wages than any of the other old countries, which have protection. Ask him why it is that right here in this country, where the tariff is the same in every part? wages are higher in the West than in the East, and higher in the North than in the South.—Chicago Free-Trader. The Proper Course. Although Senator Faulkner, of West Virginia, was instrumental in having a duty put on coal and iron, he will vote for any tariff bill that is ultimately agreed upon. “If the majority of the Senate, ” he says, “should vote to take off the duty, I shall acquiesce in the judgment of the majority. lam a Democrat always, and shall not desert my part in this great fight for tariff reform.” —New York Evening Post Hill Is a Republican. “Senator Hill’s talk about ‘cheerfully voting for the Mills bill’ is the veriest jugglery,” says the Buffalo Courier (Dem.). “It is probably intended to divert attention from his cunningly con-, trived devices for complicating the situation and defeating all tariff legistion. No supporter of McKinleyism could possibly serve his cause more effectively than Senator Hill is now serving it by his tortuous course." The Greatest Paper Right. “I want to say right here, ” paid Senator Voorhees in the Senate, “that in spite of what other changes may be made—no matter what may be floating in the air—the income tax will stay in this bill.” So the World has said for three months past. So it will prove to be when the bill is signed. The parrots will find that they have parroted in vain.—New York World. A Sectional Bill, “The only true sense in which the Wilson bill is sectional, ” says the Baltimore Sun (Dem.), “is that it still leaves the manufacturing sections in possession of three-fourths of all the unjust advantages which they have been enjoying for a whole generation past over the unprotected and overtaxed farming States of this Union. ”