Middletown transcript., 1897-07-31
rAnIRR AND TRUSTS.


are those who pretend 70 believe that
it was q sufficient tariff. Men whose
business expenses have for the past four
years exceeded their profits have con-
cluded long since that something must
be done, and the most snpid have real.
lied that to continue to pay out more
than comes in can have but one end
ing-financial bankruptcy. This was
the situation nationally which some
free trade papers would have continued,
because possibly their interests as inn
porters or as something else were being
served though the general interests
suffered. Ii is the belief of President
Mckinley and of other Republican
leaders, and we think of the masses of
the Republican Party, that the Dingley
Tariff law will produce revenue suf-
ficient to meet the demands of the
government and that it will go far to-
wards restoring business confidence and
general prosperity. There are un-
doubtedly many Democrats, protec-
tionists at heart, who entertain SINH
lar feelings. Not few Of them voted
that way last November.
About the only specific objection to
the tariff law just passed which the
Democratic press as partisans feels
bound to make, is that it favoIs trusts
in general and the Sugar Trust in par
ticular. The Every Evening" of
Monday says:
s'Twice in national elections the
people repudiated McKinley's own
tariff, and it is probable that at the
first opportunity they will repudiate
the Dingley tariff, which Mckinley, as
President, signed with such q ready
pen. Their interests have been set
aside for those of the trusts. The
latter have been waited upon with the
utmost promptness. but the people have
been told to wait. 1t remains to be
seen how long, and with what measure
of patience. they will endure this policy
of delay"
1t is true the Republican Party was
defeated after the passage Of tho Nc
Kinley tariff but it is also true that
under that tariff the greatest prosperity
this country ever knew was enjoyed by
the people, and as atoDement for their
error in defeating Republic anism they
elevated its author to the presidency.
But as to favoring trusts. We ask
the :" Every Evening" if it is not true
that the Democratic Party in its Nat
ional Conventions has denounced trusts
and deplored their influence, and yet
when In power the Party has failed to
pass . single law correcting the evil ?
Is It net true that the only action taker
towards limiting the power and grasp
of trusts has baen passed by Repub.
lican Congress. Please answer these
inquiries. We will promise not to ask
the very awkward question, Why un-
der such circumstances is the cry set W
that the Republican Party fayors trustsi
Now as to the specific charge: Doe.
the Dingley Tariff favor the Sugar
Trust We have seen an explanation
of that charge which we believe is a
statement Of facts, and being fact
should put to shame any editor who
knowingly misrepresents for the sak'
of party advantage. The facts ar'
these:
1t was generally conceded when the
bill passed the House that it wa
not in anyway advantageous to tn,
trust, but that, on the contrary, it tool
away from the trust much Of the ad.
vantage which it had under the Wilson
law.
Stripped of technicalities, the colo
facts are that as the bill left the House
the rates on refined sugar we're 12f cts
per hundred pounds greater than the
rates on raw sugar. OF course, The
rates on different grades Of raw sugar
| were different, but taking the numbel
Of pounds of any grade which were re.
quired to make a hundred pounds OF
refined sugar it was found that the
rates we're on an average Of 124 cents
per hundred pounds less than those or
refined sugar. This means that the
sugar refners Of the country, whether
in the trust or out OF it, were allowed
a difference Of 12! cents per hundred
pounds or 1-9 of cent pound, differ.
ence between raw sugar when imported
and refined sugar when imported, thus
giving them an opportunity to import
raw sugar at Is of cent pound less
than the rates at which refined sugar
can be imported. It is generally con.
ceded that the cost of refining sugar is
not less than about 1-8 of a cent q
pound, SO that the rates really given to
the sugar re6ners are simply the bare
difference between refined and unre-
fined sugar Of the cost of refining.
1t is well known that the rates
adopted by the Senate were more ad.
vantageous to the sugar refiners, but it
is fact that the rates agreed upon by
the conferees made precisely the same
difference between raw and refined
sugars that the House bill made when
1t was passed by that body. The COZ
ference report did increase the rates on
refined sugar slightly, but it also in
creased the rates on raw sugar, thus
making the difference in the rate OF
duty between raw and refined, or the
Hdifferential,s - as it is called, precisely
what the House bill made it originally
I24 cents per hundred pounds, or / s OF
. cent pound.
But, says the objector, if the confer
ence report gave to the sugar trust no
advantage, why was it that sngar-trust
u ~, l..s--