The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-04-25
INDIANA BEGINS TO MOVE.


INDIANA BEGINS TO MOVE.
We are gratifed to note that the Min
nesOta resolutions have had the effect
of waking up the tariff reform spirit in
the Indiana senators and bringing out
clearer expressions Of their firm adj
herence to the doctrines of the party
than had heretofore escaped them. Mr.
Turpie appears To have made strong
tariff reform speech and an excellent
defense Of the income tax. incidentally
arraigning Senators Hill and Smith in
a satisfactory way. So far as appears
from the dispa tches he made no apology
for the obnoxious senate amendments.
but took the ground that the question
was one Of a bill with these defects or
none at all. This was the position of
Senator Mills. who spoke several days
ago. 1t places the democratic party in
an unfortunate position, and yet even
the bill with the senate amendments in
cluded is so great an improvement on
the Mckinley bill that it might be &C
cepted if the people could feel sure that
nothing better could be done. Mr.. Tur-
pie says:
To SOW and not to reap: to stand for
long years in hope and expectation. not
to be realized. was the rule i'm reform
from which the nObleSt characters had
never been exempt. Justice might be
delayed, bafiied. even betrayed and
wounded. but it would arrive at last.
There is pathetic truth in this. but
heavens! what a position for a political
party that has promised reform, and
now stands in absolute control of the
Iaw-making power To say TO the peo-
pie, You have given US control for the
purpose of making this reform. but we
cannot make it," Why? Because of
traitors among us. Who are those
traitors? Who is Standing out for favors
to the sugar trust? Who for favors to
the whisky trust? We know the other
traitors.
We also find in the South Bend Times
a letter of Senator VOORHEES,, which we
reprint elsewhere, and which is a very
decided Improvement on his speech. For
instance he says: II say to you with
the utmost frankness and sincerity that
1 fought hard against anything at all
being put on sugar, iron. or coal, but
that it was impossible to pass a bill
without the concessions made to these
interests" And further, this: eff I
have made a mistake in the discharge
of my duty. as one of your senators, il
is in believing that the bill we reported,
and which is now pending, is greatly
to be preferred to no legislation at all
to the odious Mckinley law which we
stand pledged to repeal" These state
ments are excellent so far as they GO
We wish Senator voorhees, had used
them in his speech. The only thing I'm
is that Mr.. Voorhees, is still shy on
whisky. In the entire letter there is no
reference whatever to the five years ex-
tension of the bonded period, which is,
in other words, a grant of five years to
whisky-owners in which to pay their
taxes. Who is responsible for that? Did
Senator Voorhees, fight hard against it?
Who is the senator who will not vote
for the bill without this provision, which
was struck out by the house by
tremendous majority? We regret that
the senator overloolks this point.
The claim that the senate bill is bet
sidered heretofore. There is nothing in
the point of lower ad valorem rate, and
nothing in the increase of revenue so
far as the Objectionable amendments
are concerned. The reductions on
wooden goods, tin plate and some other
articles are thoroughly approved by
democrats. The tax on raw sugar is a
matter of little Importance, one way or
the other Tariff reformers believe that
sugar is a proper subject for revenue
taxation, and consider a duty infinitely
preferable to a bounty. The objection
able features are the duties on refined
sugar. coal and iron. and the extension
Of the bonded period of whisky, and to
all of these, but the last, Senator voor-
hees now proclaims his hostility. His
apology for the bill containing them is.
therefore, superfiuous. We would COM
mend especially 10 the one or two In