Litchfield enquirer., 1844-02-15
.. COMMON BROWN suGAR.n

There is no end to the interpretations of the Locofocosm of Connecticut on the subject of the Tariff No sooner is one falsehood put down than half dozen) ten fold more garing if possible than the Original) will start up to occupy its place. As
 fair sample of their recklessness on this subject we invite attention to the following paragraph from the Hartford Times.
 SUGAR.-Common brown sugar, necessary ar- ticle in every family, is enormously taxed by the present tariff At the time the law was passed, a good article could be purchased for five cents a pound. Now ten cents pound is the price. Just double the price on account of the tariff Still the federalists are in favor of the principles and details ofthis tariff The democrats claim, and very justly, that it needs modifying. g.-Hd'tford Times.
 Here it is distinctly averred that common brown sugar "is enormously taxed by the present tariff, and that on this account the price of the article has been increased 100 per cent that is to say from 5 to 10 ceuts per pound. Observe how disingen. uously the Times man keeps out of view the real duty on brown sugar. It would not answer his purpose to state what the duty in fact, and there- fore he deals in the vague phrase enormously tared by the present tarif." Now know ye Messrs. Locofocos, that the duty laid on "common brown sugar" by 'sthe black whg tariff" is only 1-2 cts. per pound; and it will puzzle all the arithmetic you can muster to show how duty of 9 l-2 cents can add 5 cents to the cost of the article. And know also another fact, that this duty is as low as any duty, and lower than most, imposed on that ticle for more than quarter of century past Thus the duty imposed on brown sugar by the ta- pSe E gress by the efforts of John c. Calhoun) was three cents per pound; by the tariff of 1924 it was three cents per pound; by the tariff of 1928 (for which tariff MT. Van Buren voted as Senator from the State of New-York) it was also thyee cents per pound; and by the tariff of 1892 (for which Mir. Clay voted) it was taco and half cents per pound Gas it is now.) And yet we have clamor against the whigs for making an oppressive tariff, though they imposed less duty on the article under con- sideration than was approved by MT. Calhoun in 1916 and Mir. Van Buren in 1928. No! No! Messrs Editors of the Times! ye cannot, impose on the People in this way-we advise you to study this subject, and know something about the tariff pol- cy of the country before you assume the character of teachers! Enlighten yourselves, and then you will find out that MT. Van Buren nut un'y exceed duty oi three cents per pound on brown sugar, but actually said yea to bill that imposed duty of ten cents per gallon on molasses! whereas no oth. CT tariff has ever laid duty of over five cents on that article. o horrid this modern free trader ! this "northern man with southern principles !' who has proclaimed his opposition both to the principle and the details of the existing tari voted in 1928 three cents per pound on brown sugar ! and ten cents per gallon on molasses!! Verify, there is a vast difference between being U. s. Senator and candidate for the Presidency, when the dsinterested aspirant expects to finger $25ooO per annum mainly by favor of southern votes. But the present price of brown sugar is grossly msrep- resented by the above article. We have now be- fore us price current published in the city of New York on Friday last from which we quote as follows
 BROWN SUGARS. '"'.
 St. Croix from 1-2 to cents per pound.
 New-Orleans 73-4
 Cuba. Muse. 6 3.4 1-1