If Senator Hill, in his speech against the ineome tax aud in favor of protection and indirect taxation, intouded to strike the keyuote of Democracy in a way to boom his oandidacy f or the presidency i:i 1896, he can scarcely feel gratified with the result. If he intended to créate a stir in the Democratie camp and to advertiso and make notorious the name of David B. Hill, he must have succeeded beyoud all expectations. The Democratie leaders of Minnesota issned an address the day before Hill mado his speech, anticipating his position, and naming him as oue of the 12 traitors in the senate. A masR meeting of California Demócrata in San Francisco, on April 16, passed resolutions strongiy denouucing the "traitorons ntterances" of Senator Hill and condemnïng thetin-Democraticcourseof Thomas J. Geary, their congressman, in voting for the Wilson bill. On the same day the Samoset club of Omaha, the strongest Democratie crgauization in Nebraska, unanimously passed resolutions branding Senator Hill as a deserter and a "traitor who, having hitherto talked bebind the watchword, 'I am a Dcmocrat, ' dealt a treacherous blow at the vitáis of his party at the time of its greatest peril. ' ' On April 15 the New York World secured interviews with 27 national and state Democratie committee men. Twenty-four of these 27 declared Hill's speech un-Deniocratic and deplored his attack upon the adminisferation. But perhaps Hill is only keeping his contract with the Sugar trust - to delay all tariff legislation as long as possible, and if all cannot be defeated then to defeat the income tax, hoping that this will necessitate the placing of high duties on refined sugar. Mr. Hill is probably a good ' 'Democrat for revenue' ' and thinks the present the most opportune time to sell his services to the highest bidder.