Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-12-17

by more overwhelming majority than
the Democratic party, on account OF the
very policy which senators wish to carry
into effect by suppressing the minority
In this case vote against closure IN the
Senate was vote to uphold the sover-
eighty of the people.
The vote on the sugar question was
much less simple. Two distinct motives
influenced Republicans: first, to shut out
any action ON the tariff question, which
might under the rules of the Senate be
turned at any time into action on the
free trade bills demanded by the Demo
cratic majority; and second, the feeling
that the record of the Republican party III
favor of a bounty TO American producers
of sugar should be upheld, and that the
repeal of the duty on refined sugar should
not be permitted without restoration OF
the bounty granted in 1890. The hrst
reason was sound and sufficient. No Dill
relating to the sugar duty alone could
have been brought before the Senate
without the possibility that the committee
in charge might at any moment nave
accepted amendments embodylng other
bills which the Democrats wished to pass,
taking off all duties from coal and IRON
ore If it had been possible to secure
separate action on the sugar question,
| without any amendments whatever, the
case would have been different But it
was the intention of the Democratic ma
| iority, and doubtless of the President who
repeated in his message an urgent recon-
mendation for repeal of duties on coal and
iron, that these measures should be put
through together, and by amendments of
the sugar bill for which it was hoped to
secure consideration.
The second reason has weight only with
those who believe that the duty imposed
| in the act of 1890 in favor of refiners of
sugar was warranted The Tribune did
| not so believe when the act passed, and
there have been a thousand good reasons
since for maintaining that protective dut-
| les for refiners of sugar had no good ex-
cuse. The duty was palmed off on the
| Congress of 1890 by representations to re-
! finers who claimeds to be opponents OF
the trust, but who within few months
sold out to it and took part in that
outrageous monopoly. The declarations
of the sugar trust itself. both in testi-
mony before congressional committee
and in official reports, has abundantly
proved that there was never any reason
| IOr cdSUlnR dTOullti UHiS IuOliopuIy oIo
shelter of protection. The planters of
Louisiana and other states were sufficient
| ly defended by the bounties. 1t was
entirely proper for Republicans to insist
that the bounty should be restored, but
| it would have been better for them if it
had been possible to do so without APP
pearing to insist upon retention of the
protective duty for refiners.
The action of the Republicans is justified
only because there was no other way to
| shut out action on various free trade bills
which would have been thrust upon the
Senate at the earliest opportunity. If
| there could be separate action on the
sugar question alone, without the chance
that in the Senate or the House other
tariff measures would be added as amend
ments, the Republicans would be wise to
accept the opportunity to manifest their
hostility to the sugar monopoly, and their
determination to give it no favor, while
| insisting upon defence for home produc-
ers of raw sugar But there was no such
chance, and the Democrats will have to
! face the future with the infamous record
made by them at the last session. 1t is
enough for them that, in Senate strongly
| Democratic, they were unable to command
votes enough to modify their own record
deliberately made at the last session, and
condemned by the people in the recent
elections.