Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1894-07-05
REPUBLICAN MATTERS.
A CONTRAST.
Republican Protection to Sugar and
Democratic .tteform."

Democratic .Reform."
The sale of the Democratic party
to the sugar trust has boon com
pleted by the delivery of goods.
What public opinion will be about
the barter is not hard to foesee
Strong now. it will be greatly in
tensified when the people come to
pay the tax on sugar and the enor-
nous sums which Democrats of the
senate have voted TO take from the
pockets Of consumers and to put into
the treasury of the trust. 1t is
therefore essential that the facts
should be understood before the
final vote is reached. The
only excuse made by Democratic
senators is that the monopoly en-
joyed as much protection under the
act of 1890 This is not the truth,
but if it were, it would DO no valid
excuse whatever.
In 1890 the Republican party was
engaged in framing tariff for pro-
lection, in accordance with its prin-
ciples and honest beliefs. 1t could
not consistently refuse defense to an
American industry, il satisfied that
such defense was needed. The Dem
ocratic party, on the contrary, is now
engaged in framing tariff profess
eddy for revenue only. 1t cannot
honestly give protection to any
American industry unless convinced
that the duty is for revenue purposes
advisable.
The New York Tribune did not be =.
lieve in 1899 that any duty on re-
fined sugar was needed for protec-
tion. Republicans in congress
reached different belief and were
powerfully influenced by the argu-
ments of the opponents of the sugar
trust At that time tho Knights OF
Philadelphia, the Franklin sugar
company, and the great concern es.
tablished by Spreckels were engaged
in vigorous opposition to the sugar
monopoly, declared that they would
never sell out to it for any consider
alton, and pleaded with congress not
to expose them to destructive for
eign competition even while they
were bearing for the benefit Of the
whole people the risk and loss OF
breaking down the trust. They tes-
titled in the strongest terms that the
industry would be crippled and their
competition entirely crushed il for
eign refined sugar should be ad-
mitted free of duty. When Senator
Aldrich states that "he could not re.
sist the arguments Of tho Philadel-
ghia reiiners," he refers to the plea
of these opponen0s of the trust,
Spreckels, Knight and Harrison. and
the New York Times surely should
not conceal a fact so important,
though it deprives the senatorial
bargain OF its only shadow of excuse.
These arguments prevailed, though
practically all the influential men of
The sugar trust were active and
liberal Democrats Mr. Havemeyer,
its head, will be long remembered
in connection with Mr.. Tllden's
cipher dispatches, and others had
been not less Jealous Democrats.
Republican members of congress did
not refuse for that reason the meas
ure of protection they believed to be
needful, and the argument of the
Philadelphia opponents of the trust
prevailed. They promised to break
down the monopoly and give the
country cheap sugar, and asked con-
gress to give them chance. The
protective duty Of half a cent n
pound on refined sugar was granted
in 1890, and in March. 1892. the
trust found 1t necessary to increase
its capital stock $50. 100000, and
thereby to buy up the Spreckles.
Knight, Franklin and Delaware
sugar refineries. The advice of the
Tribune was justified when they
sold, and the monopoly thus became
for the first time virtually complete.
The Democrats now give this com
pleted monopoly more protection
than the Republicans deemed need
full to insure opposition to the mo-
nopoly. The act OF 1890, moreover,
never gave the monopoly q year in
which to buy up raw sugar and inn
port it free of duty, afterward ON.
towering it to tax the people q cent
and half on every pound OF re.
fined sugar, thus pocketing some.
where from $50. 900, 900 to $50, 00O.-
600 of the money taken from the con.
sumers professedly because the
government needed the revenue. To
that depth of infamy only the Demo
cratic party has ever descended.