The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1895-02-01
sQuihmlNC REPUBLICANS.
Frying to Explain the Votes ~ Their sen-
aIors Ia LnAnr Of the sngar Irn.t.

rrying to Explain the Votes 81 rhcir sens
ators In Favor of the sugar Trust.
IL j. laughable to read The Shifty ex.
plantations of republican papers for the
fact that all repnblican senators re-
emily voted 10 retain the present dif.
ferential duty of one-icnth OF cent
per pound on sugars exported from
countries that pay an export duty. As
usual the republicans are preaching
against trusts. hut are voting To sus-
tain them. II even three rcpu blican
senator's had broken loose from their
trust alliances and had voted with the
democrats against the trusts this mex
cusa bic and meddling duty would have
been abolished. liut they did not do
50. and now the republicans are search
ing for plausible excuses for such con-
duet.
The New York Press If December Is
would have It's readers satisfied with
the explanation tina; republicans are
for free sugar nothing less ana moth
ing more, except a bounty Ia sugar
growers Ii they cannot have .all at
once they Will continue TO vote for the
trust
The New York Tribune does not pre-
sumo quite SO much upon the ignorance
of its readers. II coniures up two rca-
sons for the misconduct Of republicans
The first i. 10 shut ont any action on
the tariff question. which might under
the rules of the senate be turned at any
time into action on the free trade bills
demanded by the democratic ma jority."
As absurd and false as is this excuse
the Tribune is bound 10 conclude that
II is sound and sufficient"
The second reason j. 1.-THE feeling
that the record of the republican party
in favor OF a bounty To American pro-
duccrs of sugar should be upheld and
that the repeal of the duty on refined
sugar should not he permitted without
restoration of the bounty granted in
l>9O. Contrary 10 the declarations of
the Press the Tribune has very poor
opinion Of this reason Ii says:
The second reason has weight only
with those who believe that the duty
imposed in the act Of 1890 in favor OF
rehner> of sugar was warranted. The
tribune did rot 80 believe when the
act passed. ana there have been thou
sand good reasons since for main
tanning that protective duties for re-
hners Of sugar had no good excuse
The duty was palmed of on the con-
gress of 1890 by representations of re-
tiners who claimed to be opponents OF
the trust. but who within few months
sold ont TO it and took part in that out
monopoly. The declarations
Of the sugar truS; itself. both in tcsti-
mony before congressional committees
and in official reports. has abundantly
proved that there was never any reason
for casting around this monopoly the
shelter of protection.
This statement contains several adj
missions that the Tribune has often
male at certain times. viz. before the
bill passed and since the
passage of the Wilson bill II admits
u that tariff protects trust. ,sl that
he sugar trust duped the republicans K
in congress ia ls9o t3l that the industry (
II sugar refining needs no protection: X
- that the sugar trust is an outrageous 4
which has made thousand 4
bad uses Of its protective duties and
has. therefore. forfeited its right 10 such \
duties. These are all very rich admis-
sions to come from the leading protec-
ton organ of this country. They can
not but awaken the thought Of thou
sands Of Rip Van Wrinkle republicans T
whose minds hive been asleep during I
the past thirty years and whose eyes \
have only been opened enough TO read \
the Tribune once a week. They will \
rub their drowsey eyes and scratch
their stupid heads and wonder how it
: that a sugar duty can protect a trust
and work 80 much harm to every body 7
while other duties are such blessings
some Of these readers may in time call J
ipon the Tribune to explain what du-
ties are, and what are not good. and
why. BYRON W. IIoLT.