The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1890-01-03
BE CANDID.

II IL best t5 be candid in politics as Il is
In other matters. An erroneous cause Of
principle can not Withstand The light OF
reason, and therefore candor can never be
used as means TO promote such cause or
principle. Such cause or principle must
depead upon sophiatry and cunningiy
worded phrases to make the error appear
for the truth. The 7Gmfs N. sntaiaser
says:
ff"WhlIe we do rot believe In projecting
any industry which cannot be successfully
followed In this country, and which. as q
result, would be q direct tax on the con-
sumer, we do believe that, II the govern
ment would Offer pecuniary inducements
for the cultivation OF some articles, they
could be grown to al advantage In the
United States. For instance, the product
OF sugar IN this country has not been SUI
fieient 10 supply the demand, and the pro-
tective duty In the Mills bill OF last session
would add 10 the price OF the article"
Nearly every republicans member OF
congress, when The Mills bill was up for
consideration aud the Item Of jute was be-
ng discussed, took grounds against taking
The 30 pr cent duty fiom that article aad
putting Il on the free list. Herman
Mitchell and Dolph all voted against put
ting that article on the free llst. This
duty on The on jute ID an attempt TO pro-
tect an industry that can not be success
fully followed In this eoastry" and walsh
as result Il direct tax upon the eonsum.
er--mainly the fsrmer. The Mssntaisser
we'll knows that jute Is not, and can nos,be
raissd In this country and yet, Il has never
raised iis voice against this isx on the
consumer, the farmer. tts Representatives
10 congress voted against taking this tar
from juie and /, approved their course.
When ils words might have had some
weight 10 promoting the interests OF MIL
lions OF people without Injury TO any one.
II remained silent. This 10 merely
scheme TO dodge the issue when Il h up,
and meet Il face TO face when II IL not be-
Ing considered The Mosnfeinssr In the
most unesndld way ssys the protective
duty on sugar In he Mills bill Of last sss
sion would add TO ths priss Of the article"
Tie only logical inference TO be drawn
from ihis s,asemsnt 10, that the trainers
and supporters Of the Mills bill had
placed duty on sugar that was not al
ready provided for In the then existing
law. But such was not the case - the
Mills bill made material reduction Of the
duty on sugar. The AsEafsins~ makes
the statement evidently for the purpose OF
keeping alive prejudice against the dem
eeraslc demand for material reduction 81
the tariff tax. That there should be re-
aus.ion Of the duty on sugar hardly admits
of = question. but, with all the loud
mouthed demands made By the OvsgsrAss,
MsssfaimNsr. and other protection organs
OF the tariff monopoly year ago for free
sugar. nevertheless. the republican party
will not make the reduction. They were
not candid when they demarded free SUI
gar. The Afssnfsiassr would have con-
gress grant bonus 10 those who will en-.
gage In raising beet sugar. II thinks this
would not be parsernal government. On
the contrary II would be difficult 10 con.
ceise OF a more obnoxious form Of pa,ernal
government. Il would be saying 10 ose
class Of people that the government would
tax another class 10 raise bounty money 10
pay 10 the former class TO make Il sue
eessiul In business. Upon the very face
of II the proposition is an outrageous one.
and we can not understand how an INTEL
ilgent man. Imhued with The spirit Of fair
dealing between freemen could, for q
moment en,ertaln t.