Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1900-09-25

~ meuie. Have Beeu Re. uUnes"
Jaw. - Record of Loih Parties Ut
Lhe Issue.
Trusts as q political Issue represent
ali attempt OF the Democrats to bank
ION fa.se charge. The record OF
that party concerning trusts is one of
lasting infaMy, and their charges
:. sainst the Republican party display
brazen impudence. With the presl.
iency, with control OF the house for
many years, and of the senate for some
time, the Democrats failed to enact
antitrust legislation. They became
lie plant tool OF the sugar trust, and
Eavemeyer, the king of that monopo-
iv, dictated his own terms to the party
his money helped into power.
Under the Mills tariff bill, the Dem
ocrats bargained to give the sugar
trust six million dollars, but Republi-
can votes prevented the steal
When the Wilson-G German tariff was
under consideration, the sugar trust
bought up Democratic senators like
EllttDs anu many vi lItA-i,
Senator Smith, OF New Jersey, were
accused of speculating in sugar stocks
as a result of their knowledge OF the
coming adoption of the German sugar
schedule, dictated ty Havemeyer An
inquiry into the subject by senate
committee smirched many Democratic
senators. In the senate Havemeyer
dictated his own terms with reference
to that bill, and Senator voorhees,. the
leader of the Democrats, was the SER
vile tool of the sugar king.
When the bill reached the house for
occurrence in the senate amendments,
Nr. Wilson, author OF the bill, and the
T2mocratic leader on the floor, de-
.eunced the senate amendment in fav
1- of the sugar trust in the strongest
l-lguage. He said: Il have been
dibly informed, and believe, that
- sugar trust, anticipating the enact
, ent of the senate schedule, purchased
s112 900 900 worth of raw sugar. 70
Us be true, the profits accruing to the
lst from the investment, by the en-
a,tment of the senate schedule, Will
Ge at leasr $40 100000" But the Dem
urratic majority in the house passed
lne bill a. il came from the senate,
and the sugar trust pocketed the $40,-
0O0O00
VILLAIN j. Bryan was member Of
congress when the Wilson tariff bill
"Gs enacted. He was one of the 20i
Dsmocratic members who voted for
Jne sugar trust schedule at the dicta-
ton of Hayemeyer.
The infamous whisky trust ousted
Samuel j. Randall from the speakers
chair of the house of representatives,,
and placed therein John G. Carlisle, OF
Kentucky, from whom it secured such
legislation as il desired in respect D
the retention OF whisky in bond for
longer period.
The Democratic legislature of Mis-
souri, recently created a $90O00OOo
street railway trust in ST. Louis-one
of the most rapacious monopolies in
our history, which defeated the strike
of the conductors and motormen in the
past year.
The exposure of the abominabla
practices Of the Tammany ice trust in
New York which, 10y corrupting the city
government, succeeded in converting
thirst and fever into dividends" is
well remembered. Among the chief
promoters and bcneficiaries of the ra-
pacious ice trust were Boss Croker, his
minion, Mayor Van Wyck and numer-
GUS high Tammany officials of the city
government.
When the Porto Rico bill was before
Congress, it was discovered that the
sugar and tobacco trusts had bought
up practically all the sugar and tobac-
CO on the island, and that the free en-
tiy OF such products to this country
would give the trusts in question
bonus of more than $4,000 0O0 1t was
decided to place duty upon the pro-
ducts of Porto Rico equal to Is per cent
OF the regular Dingley tariff rates,
ard then employ the duties so col
lected toward internal improvements
IN Porto Rico. This measure was
s."enuously opposed by the Democrats,
P~1 they exerted all their power to
f yGr the trusts Senator Jones,
c. lirman of the Democratic National
c nmittee, attempted to have the du-
{, collected upon Porto Rican pro-
acts refunded to the trusts instead OF
b.. .ng given to help impoverished and
Suffering inhabitants of the island.
Such is the Democratic record on
trusts. Such is their theory and prac-
tee.
in the 5Oth Congress the Democrats
tackled the trust problem, examined a
great number Of witnesses, including
trust magnates, collected vast
amount of testimony at large expense,
but omitted to make any recommenda-
tion, owing to differences of opinion
among the members.
In the ed Congress, the House Ju-
dietary Committee made another in
vestigatioD, and submitted report, in
which it declared that none of the
methods employed by the trusts in con-
trolling the production or disposition
of their products are in violation OF
4lx 1.