If reports sent out trom ■ ton are to be relied upon, there is a delibérate attempt on the part of certain McKinleyized demociatic senators to play the same oíd game that has disgraced republican tariff legislation for many years. These senators seem to be far less concerned about getting the requisite revenue for the expenses of the government economically administered, than about taking care of certain private interests, There seems to be no división among the majority of the finance committee as to the best method of raising revenue, but a vulgar squabble by a few democratie senators outside the committee to have the Wilson bill revised in the interest of private and corporate greed. While all this would be seemly enough in a republican senate conceiving its duty to be to frame a tariff law for the raising of private revenue, it is a shame and a disgrace in a democratie senate pledged to a revisión of the tariff in the interest of public revenue only. A duty on sugar would be a purely revenue duty and may be defended, therefore, but we submit that there is no valid revenue reason why coal should be taxed for this purpose. Last year under the McKinley act which carries a duty of 75 cents per ton on coal, there was imported into this country t, 108,061 tons upon which a duty of 5831,045.75 was collected. From these facts it is apparent at a glance, that the representatives of the coal interests in the senate are not fighting for the retention of this duty because of the revenue derived therefrom, but solely for the benefit of the pocket óf the coal barons. Then, again, the senators who are carried in the pockets or at the toe of the boots of the coal mine owners, are said to be willing to accept a cut of 25 cents in the present rate of duty, and this only serves to make the evidence conclusive, that they are not contending for a retention of the duty for revenue purposes, but purely for private gain. Coal is a crude material the same as iron and wool and the same reasons which apply in favor of free iron and wool are equally applicable in the case of coal. To make an exception, therefore, in favor of one of these articks would be a piece of rank favoritism and entirely indefensibie. It is not surprising, perhaps, that these coal "herring" senators in view of their long intimacy with the contaminating influences of republican tariff principies have beebme tinctured to some extent with their dishonest practices, but they are nevertheless false to their party pledges and inexcusable for the delay they are causing in the advance ment of the tariff bill.