The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-15
SENATOR'S TAKING SUGAR.

Walter Wellman, the Washington
correspondent Of the Chicago Times
Herald, one of the best informed and
most trustworthy Of the whole corps,
tells his paper that three senators have
been taking advantage OF their position
and of the information they gained by
it of the change the senate finance
committee was making in the sugar
schedule Of the house bill, to speculate
in the stock Of the sugar trust. He
says that 5000 shares were bought by
them when the stock stood about 10y
after the Dingley bill was reported, and
sold out on the rise to 11S that took
place when the senate change was an
nounced. It was the same correspond
ent who advised his paper that the
managers of the trust were giving At-
tie attention to the bill In the house,
reserving their efforts for the senate.
where they felt surer Of their power.
Senator Tillman- picks up his pitch
fork, idle since the inaugurati On. and
this time uses 1t for proper and tusti-
fable end. He calls the attention OF
the senate to this statement OF Mt.
Wellman, made, it seems by another
correspondent; directs attention to the
Chapman case which confirmed the
senate's claim of power to compel wit
nesses to disclose knowledge Of such
transactions; assures the New Hamp-
shire gad-f1y that 1t Is not a case call
ing for flippancy, and demands an in
vestigation. Thus we have the ineyita-
BILE thrust on the country again, the
natural action Of public men not snugly
moral, to utilize the government as a
There may or may not be an InTestl-
cation. Now that the senate has the
power to find out the truth, We appre-
bend there will be less anxiety to flnd
Republican side of the chamber, there
will be indifference, If not opposition,
and we admit that we do not expect
the Investigation to have either the
approval or cordial support Of Senator
German. We understand he still con-
siders his Republican instincts are Sc
curely concealed beneath Democratic
cloak.
Suppose that an investigation should
be ordered and that it should he found
that Senator Aldrich or Quay or Sewall
or all of them and others had been
buying sugar trust stocks on their
knowledge, acquired as senators, Of
what the finance committee were to
report, and that they were hailed BE-
fore the bar Of the senate to answer
to the charge of malfeasance. Could
they not put up a plausible defense,
one that any logical, sincere Republl-
can protectionist is bound to accept as
a Justification? Laying down the fun
damental principle of their party that
it is the duty of the government to so
legislate that some of its citizens may
make more money than they would in
the absence of such legislation; citing
ex-President Harrison's statement
while president, that it is the duty Of
the government to provide it's people
with occupation, could they not point
to the Whole series of tariff acts enact
ed since 1861 for substantiation Of their
proposition? If, then, this is the duty
of government, is 1t not the right Of
the citizen to make money out Of the
acts so designed? And what difference
is there in making money out Of acts
in contemplation or acts executed? If
the sugar trust was to have power
to make an eighth Of cent tariff
profit by the Dingley bill, and was to
have the right to make it half a
cent by the senate BILL why should
senators be debarred from making
something also? Are they not NOR
tai? Must they not also eat and Grink
and be clothed? Are they to be cen
fined to their paltry $4,000 a year ar d
denied the privilege Of sharing IN the
good things they help provide for other
citizens? What have we done but ap-
ply the theory of our party to our own
case and protected ourselves even as
we protect others? And the defense
would seem to make out a case.