Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 35, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 September 1894 — TRUTH NOT IN THEM. [ARTICLE]

TRUTH NOT IN THEM.

REPUBLICANS MISREPRESENT FACTS REGARDING SUGAR. False and Misleading Assertions as to the Sugar Duties In the New Tariff—Attitude of Republican Senators Towards Those Duties. “Tell the Truth." Several prominent journals of the Republican ] arty are filling their editorial columns with false or misleading assertions as to the sugar duties in the new tariff and the attitude of the Republicans in the Senate toward tho-e duties. In this way preparation for the coming Congressional campaign is made. The Chicago Inter Ocean, leading organ of McKinleyism in the West, publishes the following in an editorial article: By action of a Democratic President, of a Democratic Senate, and of a Democratic House of Representatives, the people will be taxed at the rate of ftO.OOO, 000 or so a year for the exclusive benefit of the sugar trust. The Inter Ocean knows that this is not true. The revenue duty of 40 per cent, will vield “$■>0,000,0(50 or so a year’’ not for the exclusive benefit of the sugar trust, but for the exclusive

benefit of the National Treasury. The trust has a protective duty on refined sugar aside from that, and while it will yield a large sum, that sum cannot be $40,000,1)00. It will be only about three-quaters of the sum realized by the trust every year out of the McKinlay tariff's protective duty on refined sugar, because the trust's duty in the new tariff is only about threequarters o f its duty in the McKinley act. We think it should have no duty whatever, but why should any one lie about it? The Inter Ocean would have its readers believe that the trust pockets all the revenue duty that really goes into the treasury. The New York Tribune said, on the 20th inst.,'in an editorial article : Raw sugar is now practically free under reciprocity conditions. Under the Gorman bill It will be heavily taxed, and In such a way that the monopolists will be enriched at the expense of consumera

This is another version of the Protective Tariff League's assertion that the McKinley tariff gave the people free sugar. It did not Moreover, while it is true that the sugar trust will be “enriched at the expense of consumers” (although not so generously enriched as it has been by the McKinley tariff), it will be enriched by the duties on refined sugar, and not by the duty on raw, except so far as its stock of raw material on - hand when the bill becomes operative is concerned. The trusts protective duties in the new tariff are too high—indeed there, should be none whatever —but they are not so high as the trust’s duties in the Republican tariff. It is not true that the McKinley tariff gave the people free sugar, it empowered the trust to collect from the people a tax of 60 cents on every 100 pounds, and the tr ust admits that this tax has been collected. If 3,850,000,000 pounds of refined sugar are consumed here in a year, this trust tax in the McKinley tariff has been equivalent to $23,')b0,000 per annum. It to this be added the bounty paid by the people to the do nestle producers, $9,375,000 year before last and about $12,000,000 last we have an annual tax of from $32,000,010 to $35,000,000 paid by consumers of sugar and the people generally on sugar under the McKinley tariff, a tax rjp part of which went into the Nationa. Treasury, two-thirds of it going to the combined refiners and the remainder to the domestic producers.

The Philadelphia Press has repeatedly asserted in the last few days that the Republicans are Vpposed to protective duties for the sugar trust and are in favor of ‘ free sugar for the people,” a policy “declared and embodied in the McKinley law." We have just shown that no such policy was embodied in that law, and we could prove it by fiftv citations from the Press’ own columns. We quote the following from the Press’ recent editorial articles:

Republicans stand ready to wipe out the Inordinate trust pro Its.—[Aust 18.1 The Republican record In the tariff fight at Washington is all right. . . . Let the Republicans keep their record straight. They are lor free sugar and the repeal of the Gorman bill. They are against any bonus tor the sugar trust They are against the trust monopoly and for free sugar. —[Aug. 20.] No confirmation of this news about the Republcan attitude can ba found in the Congressional Record. This article of the 2cth was published after the highly interesting proceedings of last Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and the passage of the Murphy resolution by Republican votes. The official record shows the Senate Republicans strove to block and kill the House free sugar bill or any modification of it, and that they were in combination with Gorman and the sugar trust Democrats throughout the fight against this measure. We analyzed the parliamentary record of those three days on Monday last. The Republican Senators could at any time in those days have had the assistance of at least sixteen Democrats in cutting off the Fuga- trust’s “bonus," but they preferred an alliance with Gorman and his group. Were Gorman and his “conservative” associates “against any bonus for the sugar trust?” Were they “against the trust monopoly?” Does the Press think they were? Does it think the Republican Senators joined them and assisted them in order that they might thereby show their opposition to this “bonus” and this “monopoly.'” The Republican Senators were "against

any bonus for the sugar trust" as Mr. ' Quay, the Republican Senator from the State in which the Press is published, was against it, and it was by his vote in July last that the differential of i of a cent was saved to the trust Their votes on last Thursday. Friday and Satday were oven more useful and valuable to the trust than his had been in July.—New York Times. McKinley it m Doomed. The McKinley bill is dead, never to rise again. Call the bill that has taken its place what you will, it has slain the monster of corruption and oppression that was saddled on the necks of the American public by monopolistic greed, through the agency of the present Governor of Ohio. That of itself is enough to make the nation rejoice. I The blow aimed in the autumn of 1892 has fallen at last, and if thiough dr- | cumstances beyond the control of honest men its force has been so weakened as to save the principle of protection from annihilation, there was enough vigor in the arm that struck to demolish the chief product and expression of the odious system. Looking at the new bill closely, it will be seen to be an important step toward a revenue tariff. Unsatisfactory as it must be to genuine reform- I ers, it is far more distasteful to pro- | tectionists, and its most incensed critics are persons and newsfapers like the New York Sun, that have persistently fought or blocked the reform

movement. In nearly every item of the bill there has been a reduction amounting in the average to between 20 and 30 per cent. Important additions have been made to the free list. Even in the sugar schedule the consumer has profited,’ for through the tangle caused by the alteration in tho manner of applying the duty on imported sugar, in spite of all that has been said to the contrary, it is apparent that sugar is much less heavily protected in the Senate bill than In the McKinley bill. The direct protection of refined sugar is reduced from fi-10 of a cent per pound to * of a cent per pound, although in various ways the trust will be able to increase the tribute. Then the bounty is wholly abolished, and that of itself saves the people upward of ten million dollars a year. So it will be seen that in spite ot the scoundrelism of the Gorman-Brice cliciue and the pollution o’ the Senate by the monopolistic tyrants whom the McKinley bill bred the victory of 1892 has not g no without reward. Some of the burden has been lifted from tho shoulders of the weary people. More important still, the bill, as Mr. Cleveland suggests, is “a barrier against the i eturn of a mad protection” and •burnishes a vantage-ground for lurther aggressive operations against protection, monopoly and governmen tai favoritism.” The McKinley bill is dead. McKinloyismis doomed!—Chi cago Post.

Why a Reduction ? There is some talk by woolen manufacturens about reducing the wages of their employes by reason of the tariff legislation. But why should they do it? Others of their class Confess candidly that the bill protects them abundantly. A prominent manufacturer, Robert Bleakie, says: “I am well pleased with the tariff bill just passed as affecting wools and woolens. As a result of this bill, I predict a degree of prosperity permanent and lasting to New England’s woolen industry. I feel sure that within three years public opinion will havo so changed, from the beneficial effects that will be apparent, that it will be difficult to find a woolen manufacturer in the country who will not be a Convert to the new order of things.” And naturally so, when one looks at it. The interests of these manufacturers have been very well cared for, indeed. They get tneir raw material, wool, free from the moment the bill b’comes law, and they get the full benefit of the McKinley rates on the manufactured prcducts'till Jan. 1, 1895. All the wool they import, and all they have in bonded warehouses, they get absolutely free: while, until thflt time, they have the full benefit of the high McKinley duties. For four months they will be better protects! than ever before, and yet they threaten to reduce wages! After Jan. 1 they will have 50 per cent, protection and free wool. Is not their outlook good?— Rome Daily Sentinel.

Tin-Plate Prophet* Routed. The tin plats industry continues to display a perverse indifference to the goings on in Washington, and is reported to be pretty active at a moment When it ought to be in the throes of dissolution. A Pittsburg dispatch says: “Thp settlement of the tari'i has given an Immediate impetus to the development of the black-plate and tin-plate industry.” The settlement of the tariff. it hae been freely predicted, was to sound the knell of the tin-plate business. If the dispatch from Pittsburg is to be credited, “plans th a l . have been held in abeyance for months are now being put into effect and considerable eagerness is displayed to invest money in this directif n.” Three considerable projects for tin-plate establishments are n-med.—Journal of Commerce end Commercial bulletin. The Monopolist*’ Idol. The Cecil (Md. I Democrat says: “This great man Senator borman stands today the idol of the monopolist and the self-convicted agent of the sugar trust. Exalted by the Republican party, condemned b/ his own. winning laurels as a shrewd manipulator, losing caste as a public servant, his honor is swallowed up in the reproaches of his friends. ” Vast fortunes are supposed to lie buried and forgotten in the Mexican mountains.