Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-06-18

I
,,a,-a ~, Trnst a diferential duty for pro-
/ Iection equivalent 70 42}6 cents per IOO
\ mounds hut also postponed 70 next Jshu-
i srv the enforcement Of the new duty on
I raw sugar"
This shows quite a difference from Its
previous statement, and shows that the
/ senate schedule, instead Of adording
more, affords only about two'thirds OF
the protection enjoyed by the Trust
under the Mckinley tariff.
But we come now to still another
change Of statement. Four days later,
last Friday, it said;
Moreover, IL Is not true that the
Trust will have less protection under the
German bill than It has had under the
Mckinley bilL'
Really, this lightning change 6usi-
ness OF the Tribune is rather confusing.
Il is calculated to drive its readers to
cracked ice bandages. The chief Re
publican organ should tx upon some
figure above or below the Mckinley
rate which it can stand by for four or
Eve days at a time.
Another astonishing and, indeed,
laughable yagary OF the Tribune is that
the Sugar Trust is dissatisfied with the
Mckinney bill and anxious to restore
the duties on raw sugar" Where the
Tribune got this piece Of news we can
not imagine, for We have seen it nowhere
else. 1t is nevertheless funny. President
HAvENYER admits that the last
three years the Trusts profits under
the Mckinley tariff, have been between
$40. 900, 600 and S35, 600, coo, a sum large
" in excess Of the entire value Of the
Trusts plants. And the Trust paid
about SlI, 475, 900 in dividends aud inter
est last year, a year in which very few
other concerns, If any, were able to pay
a dividend OF twenty-five per cent upon
common stock that is wholly water. DO
these figures look as though the Trust
was "dissatihed" with MeKineyism?
On the contrary, it is firmly believed bY
many shrewd observers that IL is the
purpose OF the Trust to prevent if pos
sibIe the enactment of the Senate bill
and the repeal Of the Mckinley law,
As regards the smOuut OF protection
provided by the Senate bill and that
furnished by the Mckinley law, Sena-
tor ALDKIcH, tue Republican leader in
the sugar debate aud a tariff expert Of
the Senate Finance Committee, for
whom the Tribune has the highest re-
spect and regard, just before the vote
and 10 the course Of a lengthey speech
in which he set forth elaborate caIcuIa-
tlons designed TO show how muck pro-
lection the pending schedule would give
10 the Trust, said;
81 believe IL will be found, on careful ex-
animation, that the only rule by which 10
measure the effect Of this ad valOrem rate
as protection duty is 20 ascertain first the
cost OF refining sugar abroad, that IS the
mechanical process of taking raw sugars
and refining them without regard 70
shriu6age, and add 70 tins tue ordinary
rroht Of the re6ner, ana then take forty
per cent. on this. and you will have the
amount OF protection afforded by the al
valorm rate
lie showed, why, in his opinion, a
fair estimate Of the foreign cost Of re-
dning plus the re6uers profit would be
ons-half Of cent a pound, and pro-
ceedei.
1.-The American refuers gets the benefit
in this bill Of the 20 per cent upon that
cost aud profit, whatever 10 may be. Now,
il we assume that that cost is half cent
pound 40 per cent upon that would be
2-lO Of cent a pound; and II we add 70
that the additional specific duties imposed
bv the bill we have 20 plus ~ and plus
10 on German sugar, or Cltersnual rate
Of 42lS hundredths of a cent per pound,
aud this, I believe, IS fair statement or
the protective rates imposed by this bill as
between raw and refined sugars. be-
lieve this estimate is as correct Is any
that can De made upon the subject
Taking up the price Of German raw
and refined sugar, be showed that the
difference was about one-hali Of cent,
and asserted that this confirmed his
previous estimate Forty per cent. Of
this difference would be two-teBths Of
a cent. In conclusion, he said:
In fact. from whatever standpoint YOU
examine the question, you are lrres suo.y
led % the same conclusion that the al va
l0rem rate proposed cy this act does
give a differeutia. and discriminating DUTY
Ia favor OK the American of about 2-lO of
cent pound, which, added % the specific
rates, make, an aggregate duty Of ABOUT
AZ, buDdretths, as against 80 huudredths
imposed by the act or 1890
This was the authoritative aud final
deliverauce on the Republican side. We
can guarantee that it did not favor the
Senate BILL Yet IL Acknowledges that
the duty in the Senate schedule is but a
little more than two-tbirds Of the
Trusts protective duty 10 the present
Mckinley tariff, or A. as agsius, CO.
Those Republican organs who like the
Tribune have been making the false
statement that the protection OF the
Sugar Trust is as great under the new
Dill as under the Mckinley law, or
greater, and that the Senate schedule
WAS framed 10 the Trusts interest,
should read the careful and elaborate
speech Of their own party leader in the
Senate sugar debate, and then make an
effort 70 tell the truth.
ENeLlsn IGNORANCE or TaE SOUTH.
The London DJuBNcl-s has a lengthy
article headed American Horrors"