Democratic Sentinel, Volume 19, Number 14, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 April 1895 — FRIENDS OF A TRUST. [ARTICLE]

FRIENDS OF A TRUST.

REPUBLICAN SENATORS VOTE FOR SUGAR MONOPOLY. Combination of the Republicans with the Sugar-Trant Democrats—Protec- I tioniste Are Inconsistent—The Income Tax Must Stand. Shown by the Record. What will our Republican friends say i now about the attitude of their party in the Senate toward the discriminating duty of 1-10 of a cent a pound on sugar from Germany and the trust’s protective differential of % of a cent on sugar that has been refined? We have repeatedly directed attention to the fact, which is admitted by prominent Republican journals, that the Republicans of the Senate under the leadership of Mr. Aldrich, Pete in alliance with Mr. Gorman and his group of sugar trust Democrats at the last session, and that the alliance has continued to exist since the beginning of the present session, the purpose of it being to prevent, in the interest of the sugar trust, the removal of thefft two duties. The repeal of the discriminating duty and the trust’s differential waft the question upon which a vote was taken on Wednesday. The motion was to take up for discussion and action the pending bill, which-repeals these duties, but leaves untouched the fundamental ad valorem duty of 40 per cent on all sugars, this duty of 40 per cent being the one which produces revenue. The plans of the combination of Republicans and sugar trust Democrats had been perfected on the preceding day and on the floor of the Senate. After Mr. Gorman had sought unsuccessfully to dissuade Mr. Gray and a majority on his side of the chamber from their purpose, he went over to the Republican side, and there, in consultation with Mr. Aldrich, Mr. Allison, and other Republican leaders in the alliance, arranged the scheme of defense. The motion was Mr. Gray’s that the Senate should take up and eonsidei the sugar bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Finance. Here is the vote:

AFFIRMATIVE. Bate, Jarvis. Berry, McLaurin, Blackburn, McPherson, Caffery, Mills, Cockrell, Palmer, Coke, Pasco, Faulkner, Pugh, George, Vest, Gray. Vilas, Harris, Voorhees, Hill, Walsh-23. Hunton, NEGATIVE. Aldrich, Lodge, Allen, McMillan, Allison, Manderson, Blanchard, Martin, Cullom, Mitchell, (Oregon), Dolph, Morrill, Dubois, Peffer, ' Frye, Perkins, Gallinger, Platt, Hansbrough, Power, Hawley, Quay, Higgins, Roach, Hoar, Teller—27.. Kyle, Every Republican present either voted against takingup the bill or was paired against the motion. Those who are recorded as against the motion are 21 Republicans, 3 Democrats (Blanchard, Martin and Roach), and 3 Populists. Those who are recorded in favor of the motion are 23 Democrats. The Republicans, or even only a few of them, by voting against the trust with these twenty-three Democrats, could have caused the bill to be taken up anu could have pased it. They refused to use their power in this way because they were in alliance with Gorman for the benefit of the trust. Hereafter, when it shall appear that our export trade with Germany in provisions, grain, and other products has suffered great injury by reason of German retaliation provoked by the exaction of the discriminating duty, the people will be told by Republican journals and Republican politicians that Democratic regard for the interests of the sugar trust has been the cause of this injury. The truth is, however, that now, after the retaliatory policy of Germany has beeu disclosed and the President has urged Congress to repeal this duty, the Republican party has said by Its votes in the Senate that the duty must be retained. By the same votes the Republican party has said that the trust’s differential, which in worth fnom $8,000,000 to $4,000,000 per annum to that organization, mus> stand. The official record has been made, and it is plain enough.—New York Times. A Useful Reform Club Pamphlet. The tariff reform committee of the Tariff Reform Club of New York have published a fifty-six page pamphlet which compares item by item the tariff of 1883, the McKinley tariff, and the tariff of 181'4. In the most compact form possible Is given not only the exact duty (specific, ad valorem or compound) on each item in each tariff bill, but also the ad valorem equivalents of all duties. As every one familiar with tariff legislation knows, it is a great and difficult piece of work to obtain the equivalent ad valorem duties on each and every item in three different tariff bills aud to place them side by side in convenient form for comparison and reference; but the Reform Club comparison accomplishes this. The comparison extends to the general tariff provisions, and to reciprocity, drawbacks, prohibitions and sugar bounty clauses. The principal internal revenue taxes of each bill are also brought together in convenient form. This pamphlet can be obtained from the Reform Club at 52 Williams street. New York. The price is 25 cents. Higher Duties on Cattle. Mr. Broderick, of Kansas, has introduced a bill in the House for the restoration of the McKinley tariff specific duty of $lO per head on cattle over a year old. The present ad valorem duty, equivalent to about $2 per head, is insufficient to prevent the importation of Mexican cattle purchased in that country for from $2 to $4 per head. is also alleged as a reason for the restoration of a prohibitory duty that Mexican cattle are diseased. It is hardly to be doubted that the object of keep-

ing cheap beef out of the wrontry is to enable the great beef monopolists to maintain their exorbitant prices. The danger from imported disease might be guarded against by quarantine restriction. People who eat beefsteak will not look favorably upon any attempt to bar out of the market a cheap source of supply.—Philadelphia Record. Inconsistent Protectionists. The loudest shcufi rs for Mciiuleyism in this country are making the greatest ado about the discriminating tariff legislation in Germany, which is intended to shut out American farm products and compel the unfortunate German people to patronize “the home market.” The McKinleyites in this country ought to fall down and worship the German statesmen for doing this thing. The McKinley bill was chiefly composed of prohibitive tariff duties. If this was a God-like and a righteous act in this country, it is none the less so in Germany. But it is neither in neither case.. It is plain, simple robbery of the many for the benefit of the few on both sides of the ocean and in both countries. It is totally indefensible, and a disgrace to the civilization of the nineteenth century. The underpaid and underfed masses of Germany are now being “blessed” with a McKinley tariff system that shuts out the cheap and plenteous and wholesome food of America that the Agrarians over there may make money out of the gnawing pangs of their hunger. It is accompanied with all the concomitants of the McKinley bill. The wages of the workmen in the most highly protected industries are being reduced. The hog and cattle raiser in Germany, now that American meats are barred, is reducing the wagea of his swineherds and cowherds, because he no longer fears competition. The mutterings of discontent among a people deprived of the opportunity to buy cheap meat and cheap bread, because of unwise and semi-barbarous legislation, have been growing louder and louder for years. The latest aggravation of the policy will precipitate a climax when least expected. We notice that the Republican papers suggest that the way to bring Germany to terms is to put a prohibitory tariff on German products. Well, hardly. Let the selfish statesmen over there build the McKinley wall till it falls on and crushes them. Reprisal Is not statesmanship. Rather let us get rid of the remnants of McKinleyism, temporarily saved by the power of confederated wealth and monoply. We can even begin to plant the flowers of forgiveness on the grave of the monster.—Columbus (Ohio) Call.

At Your Peril. There is a unanimous demand among the representative organs of confederted and brutally selfish wealth to repeal the income tax, or falling that, withhold the necessary appropriations to carry it into effect The appropriation will pass the House readily, as the Democratic majority is large there. But in the Senate there Is but one Democratic majority, and on this question that is uncertain. Then the Republican leaders will doubtless resort to obstructive tactics, as they did for more than five months on the tariff bill, and thus send it over the 4th of March. All we have to say to Senators and Representatives of all parties is this: Repeal the income tax or cripple it at your peril. The plain, honest, hardworking millions of this country have made up their minds that the wealth of this country shall pay its share of taxes. It may be that the strabismus of utter selfishness will lead the millionaires into the jaws of the enraged lion. From their lofty pedestals they do not see beyond their noses. People down here on the level of human nature understand the situation much better.—Columbus (O.) Calk

To Brins Back Our Commerce. For many years Iron and steel ships could be built cheaper in British than in American yards, but now it is known that the difference is trifling so far as cost of material is concerned, while the difference in wages is fully compensated for by superior labor-saving methods and appliances employed in American yards. There is but lit tie-doubt that under the stimulus of healthy competition supplied by the admission of foreignbuilt ships to an American registry this country would soon rival Great Britain in the building of ships. But be that as it may, there is no doubt whatever that we could make a far more respectable showing in the ocean carrying trade with free ships.—Chicago Herald. The People Will Fix It. The Grocers and Importers’ Exchange wishes the tariff question “referred to a commission of men posted on political economy.” Expert knowledge counts for something in such matters, but, after all, the plain people of the country appear to have become fairly well jiosted by the lessons of experience. It didn’t take them long to kick against McKinleyism, and it hasn’t taken them long to learn to like tariff reform so well that Republicans are now the most zealous clamorers against any disturbance of the new system. A Trust Senate. The Senate, having been at great pains when the tariff bill was under consideration to mold it into a shape as satisfactory as possible to the sugar trust, has now been consistent with itself In refusing to take up the bill for the repeal of the differential duty on refined sugar. That duty will stand as a landmark of the vicious principle of protection until wiser, abler, and better men shall be in the majority in the Senate of the United States.—Philadelphia Record. Protection in Germany. Yesterday for the first time since the adoption of the new American tariff the sugar question as it affects Germany and the United States was discussed at length in the German Reichstag. A new commercial treaty with this country was suggested, and it is not Improbable that it will follow in view of the unwillingness of the German Government to offend its landholding nobility by abolishing the sugar bounties.—New York World, Dec. 15 1894.