Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-09-28
TIE Devil REBUKIlG SIN

cg9 Hs-alI
Mckinley deuouneing the new tariff
''shs work OF monstrous trust" is an
Interesting spectacle.
II the new law is the work OF q mon
strous trust, what was the Mckinley
ylaw9 Il Is notorious that when MeKin-
ley and ais committee were construct
lug their bill they invited the various
'fntsreSts" 80 submit these schedules to
suit themselves, then make these SEIZED
ules more favorable 70 the "interests"
and enacted them into law.
Most Of the Interests" had previous
~ taken on the form Of trusts aud like
combinations, against which were
directed thethunders OF the sherman
antitrust law. The Mckinley law, there
fore, was the work not OF q mOnstrOus
trust, but a score Of mOnstroUs trusts.
And il gave those trusts more than even
their own personalities had the i'm
pudence to demand.
10 is the sugar trust TO which Nc
Kinley refers, OF course, as the mon
strous trust" which made the new law.
And nothing but the sugar schedule
and fsW items OF refining materials
are the work Of the trust. Nobody
pre- tends that any other part Of the law
is its work, because the trust has no
special interest In anything else.
Now, how did this trust come TO be
"monstrous?" It's officers, the two
Havemeyers and Searles, told how IN
their testimony before the senate in
vestigating committee. Mr.. Searles
told how when he stestihed that the
Mckinley schedule was worth twice as
much 70 the trust IS the senate SEIZED
ule,
Il. o. Havemeyer told how when be
admitted that the trust had made BE-
tween $50, 900, 900 aud S35, 900, 900 out
OF the Mckinley law in three years. 1t
was the Mckinley law and its pre-
decessor, the republican tariff Of 1883,
that made the trust "manstrOus" add
supplied il with the means for inluenc-
ing legislation.
How was this "mOnstrOus trust" able
% dictate at all to a,demOCratic congress?
1t could not dictate to the democratic
house, which made sugar absolutely
free, with no favor either 20 the trust
or 70 the cane and beet growers, both
when it passed the Wilson bill in the
first instance and when il passed the
supplementary sugar bill. IL could
dictate only 70 the senate, and 10 could
dictate to the senate only because the
republicans Of that body supported the
trust with uEbroken ranks from first
70 last
If there had been so much as one
righteous republican, the separate sug-
ar bill, presenting the question on it's
naked merits, would have been passed.
But as i'm Sodom and GOmOrrah not one
righteous man was found, so not one
was found on the republican side Of the
senate chamber. That is why the sug-
ar schedule was the work Of mon
sIrous trust"
To a certain extent IL was. But as q
matter of lact, and as the Havemeyers
and Searles al nit, il was less satisfac-
tory work TO them than was that Of the
Mckinley law. As Mr.. MacVeagh has
pointed out, the new law has reduced
the trusts protection al least one-third,
in spite of the united opposition of the
republicans, assisted by few renegade
democrats in the senate.
The republicans have given the trust
all the protection IL has left. They did
all they could 10 preserve for it the en-
tire so cents per 100 pounds given it by
their own Mckinley law, instead OF the
82% cents which they have succeeded
in retaining. Yet Mckinley denOunces
the new law because the sugar schedule
'is the work Of q monsirOus trust"
= The devil Iebukes sin. The land
pirate who has stolen millions is fore
most in the merciless pursuit OF the
starving wretch who has stolen loaf
OF bread,