The Columbus journal. (Columbus, Neb.) 1874-1911, 1910-02-09

most difficult one that every nation has
to handle. In America it Is particu-
larly 90 because We have both cane
and beet Sugar production here At
home, and in addition We have insular
possessions whose future prosperity Is
almost wholly dependent upon the
sugar industry. Inaddition to this it is
the thing upon which We have always
relied for q large part of our revenue.
As l said upon the floor of the senate
at the time, no other country had 30
successfully handled its sugar question
Is America.
mo people on earth buy sugar Is
cheaply as the American except the
English; and no country except ours
has been able, 80 far as l can learn, to
develop successfully q beat sugar in.
dustry without paying bounty out of
their public treasury. Our beet sugar
industry has multiplied ten times in
the last ten years without q bounty,
which is q source of some public pride
and fact not to be treated lightly.
We ought not to do anything that
would destroy it. Those states that
produce largely of beet sugar were
very solicitous lest their great indus.
try should be injured. received peti.
tions from two thousand of our Nebr-
aska people, protesting against any re-
duction in the sugar schedule. We
did reduce the tariff on all sugar
schedules five points and on those com.
ing from Cuba twenty per cent. and
admitted sugar from the Philippine
Islands, Porto Rico and Hawaii free,
voted against further reduction, a.
did also Is much of revisionist as
Senitor Cummins and other senators.
I do not know that I did right, but
thought I did, and only today in talk
ing with Senator Cummins he said We
were absolutely right in not reducing
it further.
"Now the Dutch standard. Some.
time l hope to have an opportunity to
explain to our good people just what
fraud would be perpetrated upon them
by striking out the Dutch standard
test in our customs house. / think the
recent developments at New York de-
monstrate that the government needs
every test possibly to guard against
fraud and deception. The best auth.
ority l could get At the time told me
so,-a man who has been on the board
of customs appeals for many years
told me the Dutch standard test ought
not to be disturbed. 1t was struck out
about twenty years ago, and at the be-
ginning of the very next congress, the
secretary Of the treasury addressed q
letter to congress reciting reasons Why
the Dutch standard test should be re.
enacted into law. 1t was put back
and has remained ever since.
The man who conceived the plan
to strike out the Dutch standard test
was Mr.. w. L. Bass, of Santo Domin.
60. He is well known sugar planter
of that island, with $500 acres of plan
tation. He has been here almost con-
stantly for the last ten years trying to
get his sugar into our market on q le-
vel with our American. produced su.
gar. His was a great lobbyist and l
spent an evening with him in his rooms |
listening to his arguments as why the |
Dutch standard should be eliminated.
But in the end l concluded that he |
was looking at it from selfish stand
point and that if he succeeded in
knocking out the Dutch standard that
it would open up the door for the per.
petration of the most gigantic frauds
upon the American people and would
permit the sale to them Of bleached
dirt and sugar. To my personal
knowledge Mr.. Bass presented his case
to the president and the president
thought as did, that it was humbug.
Il am not criticising anyone who
voted to strike it out. They voted just
as conscientiously as I did. The thing
that appealed to me did not appeal to
them. But l was satisfied that l was
right then, and the more l have studi.
ed the question, the more I am satifed
still that am right. realized that
it was not a popular vote because there
was . press bureau here organized to
the doctrine of knocking |
out the Dutch standard, and the people
would not have presented to them Is
fully the argument on the other side.
IL = 4 L