The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-07-26

OF Ine Unlt6Q states would not use
towards a measure which he ever ex.
pected afterwards to approve. This
letter IS unusual and unpreced ented
in It's character and method of pro-
mitigation, the soil may be neverthe-
less seen to clearly foreshadow a veto
of the senate bill, even should the
house finally concur in our amend-
ments.' What person could expeet the
president to approve the senate bill
after its vigorous and scathing de-
nunciation contained in his letter.
You would think less of him for his
glaring inconsistency. No, this
letter is significant, it is a
bold, vigorous, even if imprudent
letter. 1t means war to the knife
against the senate, but it justifies
much of what has been said against
the senate bill during the last three
months; it means that it can never re-
ceive executive approval; it means
that the senate cannot be permitted
to abandon or surrender the great
underlying principles for which it
struggled and lost in 1888 and fought
and won in 1892. The president is
right; there is no middle ground
which we can occupy. No bill which
does not provide for free raw mate.
rails can be permitted to become a
law. 1t is unnecessary to enter into
any argument to define or designate
what articles constitute raw mate
rails. Every Democrat knows what
| they are. Any article may be consid-
cred raw material when it is in the
crudest form in which it enters to
commerce. That definition is ample
and sufficient and will redeem
our pledges if it is honestly
applied. The party platform was tor
free, not freer materials, as it is now
ingeniously commended. If the presi.
dent in his wisdom had seen fit while
the debate was progressing in the
senate to have aided my efforts to
secure adhesion to this principle by
expressing his views in favor thereon
in some proper and legitimate way,
should have been gratified. 1 rejoice
that he has expressed them even now.
although | am not required to defend
the manner and form of their presen-
tation even if they required defense
which l do not assume. l respect.
fully differ from the president in his
assumption that tax upon sugar is
necessary at this time, concerning
that an income tax is to be retained.
| do not clearly see that both are
needed for any legitimate purposes of
the treasury. The president speaks
of the Democratic principle"
and policy which lead to the
taxation of sugar. He asserts that in
the taxation of sugar "we are in no
n IF 10
cratic principles" L desire only to
suggest that if it was desirable that
sugar should be taxed as legitimate
and logical article of revenue taxation
as he now says, it seems strange that
the president did not in his last an
nual message make some intimatiop.
suggestion or recommendation to that
effect. He endorsed the Wilson bill
in his message, although it provided
substantially for free raw sugar. He
permitted the house to pass that
measure without a word of protest,
suggestion or advice that there should
be tax upon sugar, which has
come TO be largely regarded as
one of the necessaries of life
Secretary Carlisle, the trusted finan-
cial officer of his cabinet speaking I'M
questionably eX catherda outlined
with great care the essential provi-
sions of the proposed tariff reform bill
but made no recommendation what
ever for tax upon sugar. While free
sugar was being carried drought the
house, the administration remained
quiet and passive but now, after the
house has acted and the country has
been led to expect free sugar, the ad.-
ADMINISTRATION shows its hand and de-
clares for duty upon it. l am not
now antagOniZiug its suggestion. |
history. Under the existing circum-
stances, with an income retained in this
bill, l voted for free sugar before and
L shall also again. In my opinion
the house cannot honOrably retreat
from it's position in favor of free sugar,
The presidents suggestion came too
late. The senate must recede." Mr.. !
Hill in closing his speech called at |
tention to the fact that the president,
who had been so often quoted in the
tariff debate as favorable to the in-
come tax, had at last come out in no
uncertain tone against it. He
trusted the presidents words
would have their effect. He
(HilD wanted to perfect this
bill. He knew it was claimed that
his wishes would not be consulted be-
cause he did not contend for this bill.
He Lever would vote for it as
long as it contained the income tax
bill; he wantbd to see it made inde-
fensible. While he was speaking of
free coal and free iron Mr.. Pugh ere.
ated sensation by asking Mr.. Hill
who owned the coal and iron ore
which he (HilD desires placed on the
free list? 81 do not know" replied
Mr.. Hill. 81 know to what the sena-
tor proba ly refers and it may be
brought out in this debate. no not
know who owns the coal and iron
mines which come in free. 1 do not
care. 1t makes no difference" A
slight demonstration in the galleries
followed Mr.. Hill's reply, which was
renewed when he declared that unless
the senate yielded hey would go to
the wall and the president would go
to the front. After his declaration of
free sugar he proceeded to say that
the sugar clause in the tariff bi il had
b9en universally endorsed by the
members of the country. He read