Gilpin observer., 1913-05-29
WASHINGTON NEWS
By Edward Keating.

1
report and was abcut to pitt Il; in
the mails when l was handed a copy
of Eryam's Commoner CT May 90.
| found on the first page an edit
orial from the pen Of the Great Conn
moner himself under the caption "Su-
gar in the State of Colorado" and 1
decided to ask the ea.scrs of The
hundred or more Democratic papers
In Colorado who have BEEN so good
as to print my report every week to
substitute Bryan's editorial fer my
contribution.
Colorado's senators have been urg-
ed to abandon their party, repudiate
their president, and disregard the in
terests of the great army of Amer
ican consumers and ally themselves
with the senators from Louisiana who
have announced that they are for
the sugar trust first and the people
OF the United States afterward.
Bryan's answer to THAT plea should
be read by every right thinking cit
izen of Colorado. Here it is:
"Sugar in the State of Colorado"
lit is not often that the Commoner
has occasion to differ from its es-
teemed friend, ex-senator Patterson,
OF Colorado, but 1T feels it its duty
to dissent from him in the matter of
the sugar schedule.
lit is outside of the purpose of this
comment to enter into an argument
upon the merits of the case. 1t is
| enough at this time to say that the
arguments which Senator Patterson
presents are, from beginning to end,
a reproduction of the arguments that
have been made for a hundred years
in behalf of every industry for which
protection has been asked. For a
century, each industry that asks for
the privilege of taxing the rest of
the people has been accustomed to
marshal figures to show that fail
ure to comply with its demands
would mean the sure destruction of
the industry and ultimate suffering to
the country.
"Mr. Patterson's argument follows
the protectionisd lire even to the
final warming that the reduction may
be only temporary, and that If fav-
ored industry is destroyed, the con-
sumer will become the victim of high
er prices. He says:
"'That putting sugar on the free
list will make sugar cheaper in the
end, is justly open to challenge; for
should free sugar destroy or serious
ly cripple the American sugar indus
try. the last condition of the consum-
er may be worse than the first
| And then he adds:
point-only the future can determine
it.
This saving clause does not save.
If 1T is not intended as an argument
1t ought not to be advanced. 1t is
merely a speculation, and indicates
the extent to which Mr.. Patterson
has allowed his advocacy of this par
ticflar industry to lead him into the
language used by the protectionast.
THE purpose OF this editorial. how
ever. Is to combat the conclusion he
presses upon the senators from Colo
rado. Mr.. Patterson says:
"'Our senators should, 1T seems to
me, stand side by side with the two
Democratic senators from Louisiana.
They should insist that the sugar
schedule be taken up and disposed
Of by Itself
''He then proceeds to say that the
tariff is being revised in lump, TO
intimidate the weak
This is an unfair impeachment OF
the purposes Of the party and Of the
motives Of the president. He con-
cludes:
elected by the people. They must
even be nominated In an open pri-
mary. Patronage and White House
favor will not take the place Of ser
vices patriotically and faithfully per-
formed
This IL an injustice to Senators
Thomas and Shaffr0th. He does a
wrong to the senators I'm suggesting
that their support of the bill will be
due to patronage and White House
favor 1t bs, in effect, an attempt
to impose a different course of ac-
tion upon them under the threat that
they will not be considered as patrio-
tic or faithful In the performance OF
their duties as senators unless they
take Mr.. Patterson's view of the sub
ject.