Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 19, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 25 May 1894 — SENATE AND SUGAR. [ARTICLE]

SENATE AND SUGAR.

TRUSTS SEEM TO CONTROL THE PEOPLE’S SERVANTS. Subterranean Connection Between the Upper House of Confreaa and Wall Street Benedict Arnolds Who Have Betrayed the Democratic Party. Boyar Trost DominationThe sugar trust is capitalized at 175,000,000. As fully two-thirds of this amount is water, the market price of •100 worth of stock should be about •30. Owing, however, to the monopoly which controls the refining business and the many advantages which our refiners have in supplying our markets with refined sugar, it is likely that, even without any protection whatever, sugar stock might sell as high as 45 or 50. Trust stock selling at 50 would indicate profits of 10 or 12 per cent on actual capital. The difference between 50 and the actual market price ot sugar stock represents the beneficial effects—to the trust —of tariff legislation. The present selling price being above 100,it is certain that the owners of trust stock expect to make 12 or 15 per cent, a year out of the sugar duty which is now promised them by the Senate. On Jan. 24, when Warner’s free sugar amendment passed the House, sugar fell from 85} to 83. The decline continued until Feb. 1, the date on which the tariff bill passed the House, when sugar sold for 755. Undoubtedly the decline would have been much faster and greater had not the sugar magnates in the meantime, turned their attention to the Senate where two or three traitors, masouerading as Democrats, held the balance of power. Negotiations having been concluded with these Democrats for revenue, whereby they agreed to defeat or delay all tariff legislation, by making a sham fight against the income tax clause, or under cover of special demands for local industries (compensation depending upon the extent of the opposition promised), the price of sugar stock at once began to rise. On March 20, the day before the new tariff bill was reported in the full Senate Committee, •ugar jumped to 931. The New York World, which believes that there is a subterranean connection between Wall street and the Senate Chamber, which has been worth millions to certain “insiders” and to certain Senators, says that on this day (March 2 J), “Senator Brice was in conference with Mr. Havemeyer,” of the sugar trust, The trust did not cease its efforts. Two more concessions have been made to it. In each case the concession was heralded by sudden advances in the price of stocks several days before the Finance Committee had announced publicly that the sugar schedule had been modified. On April 26, sugar sold for 1004. The World said on May 4: “The report that the schedule was to be changed became generally known, although there were many who were still skeptical. Sugar continued to rise on inside information.” “Sugar quoted April 27, 103}. “And still no word from the Finance Committee. Everybody about the Senate, from the clerks up, were operating in sugar. Everybody was sugar mad. Two days later came Secretary Carlisle’s interview, which furnished ihe first official confirmation of a change in the sugar schedule to an ad valorem “Sugar quoted April 30, 107 L “And sugar still rising. Why, this rapid advance is explained by the value of the concessions prophesied. * On May 5, sugar sold for 109. This great advance of thirty-three poifits over the price of Feb. 1 has enhanced the market value of sugar stock over $35,000,000. Perhaps $30,000,000 of this increase went to the clique of “insiders” who were bold •nough to waylay the Senate. Perhaps the remaining $5,000,000 is where it can be drawn upon by the anti-income tax and protectionist Democratic Senators as a reward for “Senatorial courtesy” shown the trust. This courtesy promised a bill which will give a gratuity of about $15,000,000 a year to the trust. If this courtesy can prevent the passage of any tariff legislation it will allow the trust to continue to enjoy a gratuity of nearly $20,000,000. Another evidence that sugar stocks have been manipulated on private tips from the Senate chamber, and that the sugar trust has dictated legislation, is supplied by the Sugar Trade Journal, the organ of the trust. This journal, with remarkable foresight, made an emphatic prophecy on April 5 of what would come to pass. On May 3 this journal said boastingly, foolishly and threateningly: “It seems to be generally conceded that if any tariff bill is to be passed it will contain a sugar schedule such as suggested in ours of April 15, placing 40 per cent ad valorem duty on au sugars, with i cent per pound extra on all sugars above No. 16 D. S., and 1-10 cent per pound more on sugar from bounty countries. This is, in fact, exactly what was reported on May 7 to the Senate committee. Byron W. Holt

Satan Denounclnif Sin. “Surface indications point to the possibility of the Democrats passing a tariff bill, but it will be possible only through the consent of the sugar trust This has long been known to comparatively few persons and the secret has been well kept. The Democratic party might survive the defeat of their tariff bill, but can it withstand the infamy of passing a tariff law for the United Mates dictated by the sugar trust, wnich is the most unscrupulous monopoly known to any civilization?" The above quotation is taken from the Brookline Chronicle, and is a fair representation of a good deal of the material which our Republican contemporaries are putting forth on the assumption that it is argument. Now, it is a fact that the representatives of the sugar trust have been vigorously employed in Washington for the last two or three months. But what have they been doing? Simply endeavoring by persuasion, intimidation, and corruption to induce the Democratic majority in Congress to continue to the trust the infamous opportunities to plunder the American people secured to them through the medium of the McKinley law. It is well known that the duty upon refined sugar of a half-cent a pound has been just so much bounty to the American sugar trust, and, taking into account the hundreds of millions of pounds of sugar that are annually refined, this bounty has accorded an enormous profit, enabling large, regular, and ex- , tra dividends to be paid upon a tremendously inflated capitalization. If the representatives of the sugar trust were assured that they were to be as well treated under the proposed law as they have been under the McKinley law, they would not have made the least effort to interfere with Congressional proceedings. We should like to have the question answered by some of Our Republican contemporaries whether a protection on refined sugar amounting to less than a half a cent a

pound would be a deal with the sugar trust, and, if so, what can be said in defense of the McKinley method of granting half a cent bounty to this industrial combination? If it is infamous to pass a tariff law which concedes favors to the sugar trust, what can be said of a law which concedes the more than equal favors to the sugar trust, and also to the coal and iron combinations, to the manufacturers of worsteds, woolens and cottons, to the glass ana crockery syndicates, and to scores of other kindred and exacting monopolies? Considering the virtuous indignation shown by some of our Republican friends at the possibility of the continuance of a few of the existing protection duties, we cannot understand why they have ever been protectionists— that is, why they have not long before this come out in advocacy of free trade as a means of ending, once and forever, the system of granting favors to special interests.—Boston Herald. The Voice of New York. On May 3, a big mass meeting was held in Cooper Union, in New York City, to condemn the inaction of the Senate on the tariff bill. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Reform Club. The call, which was signed by one hundred and fifty of New York’s leading business firms and men, asked for the immediate passage of the tariff bill “with or without the income tax.* On May 4, the New York World said: “The Cooper Union meeting last night showed clearly what the people of this great center of the country’s trade desire. “They want tariff reform. They want an end put to delay that has been hurtful. They want the Wilson bill passed without the further waste of time. “This was the substances of all the speeches made there by men who have a right to speak for the metropolis, wno know its needs and the desires of its people. It was the meaning of the enthusiasm aroused by the words of the speakers. “The meeting was significant upon another point of interest also. It brought out strongly the fact that the World was right when it tald Senator Hill that he misinterpreted New York sentiment as to the income tax. Mr. Jas. C. Carter was apolauded to the echo when he frankly declared himself in favor of that feature of the pending bill, and characterized an income tax as the fairest of all possible ways of raising a revenue in an emergency like that to which recbless pension legislation has brought us. Mr. Coudert was hissed by about three to one of the audience when he criticised the income tax feature, though he protested his readiness to accept it as a condition of tariff reform. “There never was any reason to suppose that one in three of New York’s voters would object to this just tax, as there was never any reason why they should do so. “In urging the speedy passage of the tariff bill New York speaks for the business and industrial interests of the whole country, for those who have money and those who have none, for capitalist and laborer, for the captains ot industry and for the rank and file. The Democratic Senators have decided to stand together and pass the Wilson bill. Let them do it quickly.”

Getting Out of Patience. The tariff bill is not making much headway in the House of Lords (U. 8. Senate) at Washington. If these corporation tools and millionaires don’t soon get a move on them, they will surely bankrupt this country. We are apprised by the Washington correspondents that our Senators, Cameron and Quay, are battling hard to delay the passage of the tariff bill. Yet our own Quay says it will pass. If such is the case, why keep us on our sick bed and destroy the business men of the country ana keep our working people from employment. The important magnates called Senators are possibly speculating in the impoverishment of the people so they can buy their re-election cheaply. They had better get a move on them and dispose of this tariff legislation one way or the other. We have been patient with our Congressmen and Senators but this will soon cease to be a virtue. The public servants must not become the people’s masters and neglect the public business. This country is sustaining losses of untold millions by indecision and willful neglect of Congress to promptly dispose of the tariff bill. Obsolete customs, whether they be called Senatorial courtesy or any other high-sounding name, must give way to more modern methods. The American people want rapid action and will not tolerate delay.—National Glass Budget

Must and Shall Be Pawed. As the pinch comes on in the Senate debate on -the tariff, it is evident that the bill will be passed sooner or later by a party vote. Republican obstruction will doubtless be very defiant at first, but it cannot be maintained. Senator Allison must have alarmed the Pennsylvanians by his remark that he thought the bill might get through the Senate in six weeks, possibly in four, and that he “expected to aid as well as he could in the progress of it. ” The Pennsylvania program is obstruction and filibustering to the end of time. The organ of the Manufacturers’ Club of Philadelphia utters the dire hope that Senator Quay may speak for a month, and that even so his speech may be the shortest one made by any Republican. This shows that it has no real hope of defeating the bill. With a clear majority and a presiding officer in its favor, some way will be devised of having a vote, and the result is certain.—New York Post.

Offensive Features. Speaking of the Senate tariff bill, the Wilmington, N. C., Messenger (Dem.) says: “To real anti-protection-ists there are features that are absurd and offensive. Putting 55 per cent, tax on collars and cuffs is an example. The tax on sugar, iron, and salt is without defense—an abomination and a stench." It adds, however, that unsatisfactory as the measure is it is greatly to be preferred to the McKinley bill. More Milla, Less Hills. Commenting on Senator Mills’ assertion that the tariff bill could be passed by the Senate in forty-eight hours if the majority so willed' it, the Atlanta Journal (Dem.) says: “If we had more Democrats like Roger Q. Mills and fewer like David B. Hill and Arthur P. Gorman in the Senate, that body would command more respect from the country and the future of the Democratic party would be safer.” The opponents of an income tax say it is as much class legislation as the protective tariff. There is this difference: The protective tariff taxes the many for the benefit of a few private individuals, and is levied on people In pro]x>rtion to what they have to buy; the income tax is levied upon people in proportion to their wealth, and not for Srivate, but for public, benefit—Oakmd County Post Senator Chandler remarks that “Senators Gorman, Gibson and Camden are protectionists; Senators Brice and Faulkner are half protectionists." Does Mr. Chandler imagine he Is disclosing a secret in telling this?