River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1888-05-17

has nothing to do with this discussion,
hence furnishes no explanation of the
conundrums about pensions. We did
not say Mr.. Cleveland had gained a bad
notoriety, we simply said his chief
nOtoriety, and as notoriety may be
good or bad according to circumstances.
we do not see exactly why our cores
pondent is so tender on this subject if
he thinks the vetoes of the President
all right. Mr.. Cleveland has vetoed
10 pension bills, ana il he had Veto
ed more the number would have
been just 25 times more than all pen
sion bills vetoed by all the presidents
for so years. Now. we claim that
notOriety must result from such action,
and that this has given him more no
toriety than any other movement he
has made. Our correspondent declares
himself against private pension bills,
and if his position is right, he is better
than Mr.. Cleveland who approves
many such bills, and the President is
better than the democrats who help
pass them, for they pass more than he
approves. Our position is that Mr..
Cleveland's vetoes do not indicate lib
erality, hence liberal pension law
would hardly harmonize with him
or his acts. Our correspondent does
not attempt to tell US how liberal
pension law would harmonize with
Mr.. Cleveland, but goes off at tan
drums about retaining land, &c. Mr..
Cleveland has reclaimed no land, con-
gress has done all that has been done
in that line, and, if it has been good
legislation, the President only per-
formed the simple task of signing the
bills, which was his plain duty. Just
so with the pension laws or bills, if
good as his followers in congress
thought, he was in duty bound to sign
them, but if bad, as he thought, he
performed his duty by refusing to sign
them, and the l22 refusals have been
his chief source of notOriety, whether
good or bad.
AS TO the "hard coal trust" and the
kerosene oil trust" our correspondent
seems to have got muddled entirely.
This coal and oil have no duty on them
at all, are on the free list, and we ask
ed how the tariff could be adjusted so
as to make these trusts impossible, as
the democratic resolutions suggest.
| Here are two great trusts, on two
great and essential products, and the
tariff does not effect either of them at
all. Now will the trainers of the reSO-
| buttons tell us how to adjust the tariff
50 as to make these trusts impossible.
Internal taxation is not denominated
tariff by our government or our law
makers of any party, and we are not
seeking to know how Henry George
would tax lands to break up these
trusts, but how can the tariff laws be
adjusted, las per the resolution SO as
to do this work! We are posted as to
what the Coal, and Oil Barons are at,
and we want the democratic plan of
adjusting the tariff so as to kill these
trusts; we asked for the process, in our
| former editorial and it does not put in
an appearance. Let the trainers ofthe
resolution tackle it now.
am afraid our correspondent has
not read up on the sugar trust or the
sugar industry very well, or he would
at once acknowledge that but small
| fraction of raising in this country is
done outside of Louisiana, and that all
we raise is but small fraction of
what we consume, hence nearly all is
| imported and because it is imported
the sugar reiiners who have formed
the trust are able to control it by
largely controlling the importations,
and if the duty was off they could
more completely control it because it
would take less money to do it. The
tariff has nothing to do with the sugar
trust, and those in the trust would ell
! Joy having the tariff taken off. In
porters, not the people go into the
markets of the world. to buy, and
whether sugar is cheap or dear, they
will import no more than is demanded,
and as they are generally free traders,
and mixed up intimately with the sug.
ar trust it goes far toward proving
that the tariff is not help to them,
| buG stands in their way, by enhancing
The price OF the imported article as is
| always the case where there is no
home competition to prevent it, thus
causing them to put up more money to
control the impOrtations than would
be required if the tariff was taken off.
However desirable it may be to kill
the sugar trust, it cannot be done by
removing the tariff.
We are challenged TO prove that
England is the mother of trusts. The
entire landed property of England is
/ held by trusts. The ownership is
monopoly which not only controls
the land and its valuations, but also
almost completely controls all legis-
lation relating to land. The iron
makers. wooden goods makers, and
cotton goods makers of England are
several stupendous trusts each as init
mately connected in their relations as
anything on earth except husband and
wife, for the purpose of fixing prices,
not only in their own country. but in
every other country. This is simple
history and we advise our correspond
ent to look it up if he is as ignorant of
it as he pretends to be, which we
/ think is not the case.
Lastly, our correspondent tells us
that the way to make "'trusts impos-
3 -st,Ioss - - se.-,.-a ouf the tariff afto