Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-03-15
WILMINGTo THURSDAY. MAN. u.

bAAhA uIGAlNu AlLNlINA SUWG AZ
PRICE ST PER YEAR IN ADVANCE
WHINING ToN, THURSDAY, MAR. ~.
------
Southern Senators objected to free coal
and free sugar, and those articles were
put upon the list of dutiabe articles. The
south must be concilated. -AoniRg NeeS
This is one OF several editorial notes
which seem to indicate dissatisfaction
on the part Of our neighbor over the
restoration of coal to the dutiable list.
Does this mean that the Meas is break
ing away from protection?
Ii il was all right and commcndablc
for the Mckinley Congress, NJ the die
tation of Pennsylvania, to impose a
duty of 10 cents per ton on bituminous
coal, wherein is the subcommittee of
the present Senate culpable in restoring
the same srticle to the dutable list at the
dictation of Alabama? Does an act
which Is highly meritorious in Ponnsyl-
varia become so utterly comdemnable
in Alabama2
Similarly, the New York Tribune of
Friday said by way of denunciation
of the revised Tariff bill
II was the Wilson bill when II came from
the House and was referred to the com
mittee. 1t has become the trust companies
bill during its underground Journey of Il
month from the clerks desk 10 the COM
mlttee room. The sugar trust, the whisky
trust, the lead trust, and other combina-
tons and organized monopolies have
changed the character OF the bill ma
terally.
Now, we should have looked for pro-
tectionists to find cause for congratula-
ton, instead OF censure, in this partlcu-
lar, for it is evident that wherever these
and other trusts may have gotten in
their work on the Senate committee they
have, so far as they have succeeded,
been influential in changing the measure
in the direction Of McKincyism. And,
II McKinleyism is the essence OF all that
is desirable and blessed when exacted
by the trusts from Republican Con.
gress, why are such concessions" as the
trusts have been able to extort from
Democratic committeeman to be carped
at? The Mckinley bill was made by the
trusts and for the trusts, and it does not
lie in the mouths of its supporters to
object to the coal, iron, lead and glass
amendments" of the Senate committee
on this score. We should venture to
wager that motion to restore coal or
iron ore to the free list would soon ex-
pose the hollowness of all Republican
pretence on this score--that such
motion would not receive half dozen
Republican votes in the Senate.
We are not defending these changes
in the bill. By no means. To our
thinking the restoration of coal and
iron ore to the, dutiable list is a matter
to be deplored and only excusable ON
the score that it is necessary to frame
bill that can be passed. The best that
can be said is that the revision, in re-
ducing the duties on these articles be-
low the Mckinley mark, recognizes the
principle of tariff reduction, but, though
coming from Alabama, the imposition
of even the reduced duties is in the
interest of those hypocritical Pennsyl-
vania operators who, while prating of
their solicitude for protection to Ameri-
can labor" are continually raking the
scum Of Europe for men who will work
in their mines for barely enough to keep
body and soul together.
With regard to sugar, we have not
yet been able to sec where the trust has
gotten in its work. A duty on sugar, per
Sc, is largely revenue duty. Obviously
such duty will yield incidental pro-
lection, but no Republican can oh.
1ect to it on this score. The Mckinley
Congress placed raw sugar on the free
list, but gave the sugar trust the benefit
OF one-half of cent protection on re-
fined sugar. In addition, that Congress
enacted a bounty of two cents per
pound on domestic sugar. The Wilson
bill retained sugar on the free list, but
reduced the bounty by sliding scale
and cut the refners' trust down to a
protection of one-quarter of a cent.
The Senate committee struck out the
bounty altogether and made raw sugar
dutlablc at one cent per pound, with
qualifications that seem to reduce the
rehhers' protection to one-fifth of a cent
per pound. How this is to benefit the
sugar trust is something that we have
yet to see explained.