Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1890-07-17

But now the whole thing has been
| substantially confirmed. William e.
Curtis. who attracted considerable at
] tention last winter through his connec-
ton with the Pan-American Congress-,
| and who now has a position under
Blaine in the State Department. has
| given out an authorized explanation"
| which has been printed in the New
| York Tribune.
Curtis says: There is no reason why
| the actual facts about the incident in
the Appropriation Committee room
lsthe other day should not be related. 1
happened to be witness and the cir
cumstauces were these"
He then goes on to tell how Blaine
tr ed to impress the commi ttee with bis
+ idea thatswe, should use the sugar duty
as a means to secure reciprocity with
sour Southern neighbors; but Curtis takes
good care not to deny the strong
language which Blaine was represented
as using. %
He oeven goes so far as to say that
Blaine declared that if he were in the
Senate he would fight the sugar sched-
ule to the best of ibis ability-from
which it may be guessed that Blaine
may have used the vigorous language
above quoted
And as for that part of the report
which refers to the s'winking" between
Blaine and Blackburn, it is almost sub
Stimulated by Curtis. Mr.. Blackburn"
he says, ''fndulged in little chatting in
a jocular way" What7this chatting was
and what Blaine's answer was he does
not venture to tell US; and as this '.au-
thorized explanation does mot deny
Blaine's sharp words of condemnation
for the Mckinley bill, it may be safely
assumed that those words are genuine
But Senator blackburn himself has
been heard from and he verifes' the
published report He says: 81 never
heard a more earnest or emphatic de-
nunciation of a measure than that of
Mr.. Blaine on the Mckinley bill He
| tore it to tatters and warned the Re-
| publican members of the committee
that if they passed the bill in its pres
/ emit shape the Democrats would sweep
the country in 1892. So earnest and
vigorous was Mr.. Blaine that he brought
his silk hat down on the table with
crushing force, to considerable damage
| to the hat %
@ Blaine, then. is in open rebellion
against some parts of the Mckinley bill.
The question now is which represents
J the Republican party-Blaine or Nc
I kinley?
I One thing at least is clear. Blaine
recognizes the fact that CIR farmers
must have wider market for their
products in order to get good prices.
The Home Market Club, of Boston, has
for years been trying to drill into the
| heads of the farmers that the American
market IS the only one that we need to
concern ourselves about
Blaine knows better than that, and
he knows also that it is the tariffs of
foreign nations that keep US out of their
markets. He knows that the duty of
ITO per cent. levied by Venezuela on our
flour practically prevents our millers
from selling in that country. Blaine
wants to make these South American
Fcount tries let in our agricultural products
in return for opening up our market for
their raw sugar Blaine evidently sees
a sanctity laying about the foreign
market which Mckinley sneered at and
refused to believe in.
At time when there are SO many
threats of tariff retaliation by foreign
nations and when some of these nations
have already carried out these threats.
it is not to be wondered at that so shrewd
man as Blaine should recognize the
value of foreign market. 1t is we'll
also that he recognizes the principle
/ that foreign markets can be opened to
us only by opening our markets to for
eign nations
When Blaine has gone so far as that,
how much of his orthodox protection"
I remains? Has he not put himself out
side the protection camp?
The sugar Trust.
The courts in New York have struck
a heavy blow at the sugar trust, but the
Republicans in Congress have been
much more kind Mckin1ey's commit
| tee at first determined to allow Is cents
per hundred pounds on refined sugar as
/ protection to the refinerS. The refiners
kicked vigorously at this, and finally
| there was conference with the COM
mittee late one Saturday night, and
| the next day it was announced that the
protection had been raised to 40 cents
per hundred. Claus Spreckels the
sugar king of California and Philadel-
phia, who is not in the trust, expressed
| himself as satisfied-40 cents was pro-
| lection enough for him.
But the trust was not satisfied. for
trust always has a voracious NAV, and
SO pressure was brought to bear upon
the Senate Finance Committee, which
had in the meantime taken up the Tariff
bill. The result was that the protection
was raised to sixty cents a hundred.
Under the stimu1ous of the friendly
action of these two Republican commit
tees the sugar trusts certificates adj
va1ced in value on the New York Stock
Exchange to a point representing a net
gain of SIS, ZOO, 600; and only after the
courts adverse decision did the trusts
stocks fall in value
The most encouraging feature OF
the present discussion of the tariff Is
that large number of Republican man
ufacturers have rebelled, the scales
have fallen from their eyes, and they
see the protection humbu in its true
light. They nowrealize that it is moth
ing short of cold-blooded. legalized rob-
berry. Protection, which in 1888 was
such a sweet mersel to roll under the
tongue, is now a nauseating, repulsive
emetic. In 1883 it seemed so nice and
natriOtic TO aSSail as s.Rritish esfr,e