The Outlook is a Weekly Newspaper, containing this week 68 pages. Price.-The subscription price is Three Dollars a year, payable in advance. Ten cents a copy. Postage is prepaid by the publishers for all subscriptions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. For all other countries in the Postal Union add $1.56 for postage. Change of Address. When a change of address is ordered, both the new and the old address must be given. The notice should be sent one week before the change is to take effect. Discontinuances. If a subscriber wishes his copy of the paper discontinued at the expiration of his subscription, notice to that effect should be sent. Otherwise it is assumed that a continuance of the subscription is desired. How to Remit.-Remittances should be sent by Check, Draft, Express-Order, or Money-Order, payable to order of THE OUTLOOK COMPANY. Cash should be sent in Registered Letter. Letters should be addressed: THE OUTLOOK COMPANY, 13 Astor Place, New York, Vol. 56 R Published Every Saturday June 19, 1897 EPLYING to a request presented by the Executive Committee of the Citizens' Union, Mr. Seth Low has indicated the conditions on which he will accept a nomination to the Mayoralty of the Greater New York. He declares specifically that he cannot lay aside the responsibilities with which he is charged as President of Columbia University except under compulsion of a public duty that cannot be gainsaid; that he is not warranted in accepting the nomination under present circumstances; but that he is in hearty sympathy with the purposes of the Citizens' Union, and that if he were convinced of such popular desire for him as to make it clear that his candidacy would unite the friends of good government in the city, he would not hesitate to accept the nomination. He adds: a I ought to add that, whenever nominated or however nominated, if nominated at all, I must be free to serve New York according to my best judgment, if I should be elected Mayor, as I was free, when Mayor of Brooklyn, to serve that city; I should be unwilling to accept any nomination if there were attached to it any obligation, expressed or implied, in case of election, other than the obligation of the official oath as Mayor to make the interests of the city the paramount concern in the discharge of every duty. Mr. Low's letter is just as clear as absolute frankness can make it; and Mr. Low's past career gives all the assurance the public can ask that this latter declaration will be fulfilled in letter and in spirit, if he should be elected. Mr. Low appears to us at once to illustrate a noble spirit of civic self-sacrifice and of practical poli ical wisdom. To pass from the duties, if not from the position, of President of a great and growing university, which he is reorganizing with equal tact and energy, No. 8 to the unrequited toil of organizing a great city, not with the aid of all its best citizens, but against the certain opposition of some partisan but honest men, and with only the lukewarm support of many honest but indifferent men, requires no small civic patriotism. To refuse to make the attempt without clear and convincing evidence that the great mass of citizens who desire to make the city truly and nobly great wish for him as their leader, indicates a wise hesitancy in accepting the estimate of his popularity entertained by special friends. The Citizens' Union, it is understood, will proceed immediately to hold mass-meetings at different points in the city, for the purpose of both creating and exhibiting the popular desire for Mr. Low's candidacy. The leaders of the two organizations -the Citizens' Union on the one hand, and the Republican organization on the other-both of which must be supposed to desire to see a clean city government organized, should find some way to combine in presenting, if not a complete municipal ticket, at least the name of Mr. Low as Mayor. That Mr. Low would be more likely to be elected, if nominated, than any other anti-Tammany candidate is certain; that, if elected, his administration would be more full of promise for the future city than that of any other man whose name has been mentioned by any party is equally certain. There are only two possible reasons to prevent the union of the party and the non-partisan elements in his favor: one, that unreasonable jealousy which makes every political organization fearful of a success which may redound to the honor of some other body; the other, the perfectly reasonable but wholly corrupt fear of certain men influential in the Republican ranks that if Mr. Low is elected, even as a result of a Republican nomination, the Republican workers will get no share of public plunder for their pay. If both organizations are sincere and single-hearted in their destre for good government, and are indifferent what becomes of either the honors or the emoluments, a union ought to be accomplished without difficulty. And if it is accomplished, there every reason to be hopeful that Mr. Low will be triumphantly elected. The tariff discussion in Congress last week was peculiarly notable, since it afforded evidence of disruption and disunion the opponents of the Senate among Mr. Vest's amendment to exmeasure. cept white pine lumber from the $2 rate, an amendment which had been delayed from the week previous, was lost by a negative vote which included eight Democrats-Messrs. Bacon and Clay, of Georgia; McEnery, of Louisiana; Tillman and McLaurin, of South Carolina; Martin, of Virginia; Rawlins, of Utah; and White, of California. This defection called forth much comment. Senator Bacon offered an individual amendment placing a duty of twenty per cent. ad valorem on raw cotton, and declared with much force that the omission of this article from the dutiable list was a violation of the principle of the Democratic platform that tariff taxation should be so imposed as to discriminate against no section. The Republicans voted solidly for this amendment, and were reinforced by the votes of Messrs. Allen, Butler, Heitfeld, and Stewart, Populists; and Messrs. Bacon, Clay, McEnery, McLaurin, Rawlins, and Tillman, Democrats. Again, on the successful effort to increase the duties on rice, the fight was led by Mr. Bacon. All these events stirred the free-trade Democrats, as might be expected, and Mr. Lindsay, of Kentucky, asked Mr. Rawlins (the latter having been a member of the Committee on Resolutions at the Chicago Convention) why, in those resolutions, the word "" came "only" after "tariff for revenue to be omitted. Mr. Rawlins thought it was not an intentional omission, but Mr. Tillman, who was also a member of the Committee, declared that it was omitted purposely, after discussion. Mr. Vest de- The main business of the week was, of course, the consideration of the sugar schedule. A Republican caucus was held, at which the members bound themselves to vote for a substitute for the propositions made by Senator Aldrich. The rate on refined sugar was increased from 1.875 cents a pound to 1.95 cents. By a test vote in the Senate some days later this amendment was carried by a vote of 32 to 30. The forty-three Republicans all voted for or were paired in favor of the caucus amendment, and they were reinforced by one Democrat, Mr. McEnery, of Louisiana, one Populist, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, one Silverite, Mr. Jones, of Nevada. It is believed by many that the new duty on sugar is even more favorable to the Sugar Trust than any of its predecessors. At all events, the effect on the stock of the introduction of the last amendment was an advance of five points. Mr. Hoar gave notice of a new section to the sugar schedule, as follows: Provided, that the President of the United States shall appoint a commission, to consist of five persons, who shall report to Congress at its next regular session concerning the condition of the industry of producing and refining sugar in the United States, and what policy is best adapted to procuring a sufficient supply of sugar for the people of the United States at the least cost, and to encourage and promote the raising in the United States of a sufficient supply of sugar for domestic consumption, and what amount of duty on imports of sugar is necessary to enable the business of refining sugar in the United States to be conducted at a reasonable and moderate profit, and also what amount of duty upon such imports is expedient, having reference to raising a sufficient revenue to provide for the public expenditures; and to report such facts in regard to the business of producing and refining sugar, and whether the same is so conducted as to enable persons interested therein to exercise an improper control over the market, and such other facts as they may consider important and pertinent to the subject matter of their. inquiry; no more than three members of said commission to belong to the same political party. One of the most interesting propositions of the week in the tariff debate was that of Mr. Turpie, of Indiana, in behalf of the minority of the Finance Committee. His proposition takes the form of an additional paragraph to the internal revenue features of the bill, and is as follows: That on and after the first day of January, 1898, and for five years thereafter, there shall be laid and levied a sum equal to two per cent. of the value of every decedent's estate, as an inheritance tax, whether it is estate or intestate, to be paid by the executors, administrators, and trustees thereof, or by the heirs, or by the distributees, devisees, or legatees, when the value of such estate as an inheritance is $5,000 and upward, except where legacies or bequests are made to religious, charitable, educational, or other organizations which may, by the laws of the State, Territory, or district in which the decedent was residing at the time of his death, be exempt from taxation. Other provisions of this amendment prescribe the methods of ascertaining the values of estates and of collecting the tax. These duties are to be imposed upon in ternal revenue collectors, who are authorized to bring suit in the Federal courts to collect the tax in case such proceeding is made necessary. The Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to make rules and regulations for carrying the provision into effect. The Senate rejected by a decisive vote Mr. Cannon's amendment proposing to grant a bounty on all agricultural exports. Only ten Senators voted for it. They were Messrs. Allen, Butler, Stewart, Harris (Kan.), and Heitfeld, Populists; Cannon, Mantle, and Pettigrew, Silver Republicans; and Roach and Tillman, Democrats. Our readers may take special note of this vote in connection with Mr. Lubin's interesting article in another column. We commend to the careful attention of protectionists and free-traders alike this article, which appears on another page, entitled "Protection and the Farmer." Mr. Lubin, a merchant and farmer of Sacramento, Cal., proud of his Jewish blood, and believing with single-minded devotion in the humanitarian and social principles of his racial religion, is the originator and indefatigable promoter of what is known as the "Lubin plan" of paying bounties on agricultural exports. Mr. Lubin is an ardent protectionist, espousing protection not only on grounds of commercial expediency, but as a means of developing National life. He claims, however, that as now administered the protective system is one-sided, that the farmer is taxed for the benefit of the manufacturer without receiving a benefit in return. It seems to us that the "Lubin plan" carries protection to its logical and scientific conclusion; but we also think that its agitation contributes more towards promoting the cause of free trade than towards strengthening the cause of protection. The manufacturing interests of the country will hardly consent to pay out of their already unstable treasuries the proposed bounty to the farmers; indeed, Mr. Lubin complains that the Republican managers and leaders are either ignoring or definitely attempting to stifle the agitation he is directing; and if the farmers who are beginning to appreciate Mr. Lubin's logic are "turned down" by before long, with Mr. Lubin, "Give us the Republican party, will they not say equitable protection or give us free trade"? When the farmers agree to speak with a united voice, they can make themselves heard. A logical sequence of the present tariff debate is found in the protests which have come from various Govern ments. Holland have made formal protests; Great Germany, France, Italy, and Britain and Japan have had something to say about proposed duties, though their Governments have entered no formal protest. The German and Austrian notes object to the differential duty on sugar as being antagonistic to the most favored nation clause in their respective treaties with this country. Italy's protest is against the duties on Italian marble and oranges and lemons. The protests from France and Holland have to do with their respective products. The last reinforcement to the protests has been made by Switzerland. The Swiss Minister in Washington says: I recently transmitted to my Government the Tariff Bill as it left the House of Representatives |