The Ripley advertiser. [volume] (Ripley, Miss.) 1843-1897, 1845-03-08

allow a fine social party to turn out at twelve
O'Clock at night; TO 60 long distances home.
All that is more cevery managed here. An
Illinois bed has power Of eloDgatiOn or expan.
sion perfectly enigmaical 70 strangers. One
bed iour feet wide W II, on occasion, flank one
whole side of the house, and is called fedbed,
d large parties will range themselves on oppo
site tides Of the house as economically as can
dies ip box"
"Bu', my dear fellow, this is drouhy prose,
introduce yourself to that little fellow in the
corner, and pass him over
SUGAR AND IRON-THE TARIFF.
We took occasion, few days since, to pre-.
sent from official documenlsthe amount &C ual
ly paid into the Treasury in 1914, by the impor
iers of Sugar and Iron. II was shown that up.
on these two articles the amount Of duty paid
was So, 1872 30i-an average Of "A per cent. on
The invoice value This was shown to be ST..
SAL Sl5 more than would have been paid under
a duty of20 per ceni-.a very snug item"
quoth the Wing, "and applied to an old pupc
debt, created, as our neighbor vii recoec,, by
his friend Mr.. Van Biren, IN time of peace;"
and which "old deb'," our neehbor will recol
ect, was increased by his friends to about four
times its amount on The 4ih OF March, 164l, in
a time OF peace. But who paws this difference!
our neighbar answers: .The Foreign producers
| Of these articles whilst we say: "7he People o.
The Tinted States, The consumers Of the articles "
Let US lock into this issue moment.
The invoice value Of The Sugar and Iron i'm.
ported in 1874 was little under SO 1900 GOO
that was The cost of the foreign production ~
TAe importers paid for the privilege Of selling
them in this country 50, 1879 30l-and our nigh
Dor undertakes to "dcmonstrale" that this a
mount is never pad back loihem by the consu.
mers, hut must be dead loss to the Foreign
producers. II he be correct, then the import ed
sugar was sold to consumers at the invoice price
that price, as shown by the official document,
was abour3 cents perlb as an average through
1914 Vas the sugar imported sold to consll,
mers At that pricei Ifnot, our neg Dor is clear.
~ ~ rttrr--aHu rraE.tr was NOT, IS knuwn by
|everyEonsumer Of sugar in the United States.
Our neighbours position amounts to this--the
foreign producers Of sugar expended $4,000.
O00 IN making and sending the article to our
country, and then pay out oftheir pockets over
ttoo millions Ct dollars for a license to cell, and
still sell this article at $3000000! To this alb
sardiiy does his doctrine lead.
Tie error of the Wing is in considering the
cost oithe fore'ga production sugar and IRON
the same IN 1911 that il was in 1912 That
such IS his error, is manifest from his mode Of
demonstrating bis position. He supposes that
because theprces OF these articles were higher
IN 1872 than 1874, therefore The foreign produ.
ers N IL IA must pay the tariff duty ana lose
the amounl--not remembering that the differ.
eDce m the pficesin the two years may be ex.
planned by reference TO the difference in the
cost OF production in the two years The fol-
lowing paragraph shows The mode Ct reasoning
adopted by our nelghbor:-
I'm June, le42, under the 30 per cent. min.
mum policy, brown sugar. fair, was selling in
the Protective Tar Fl, (hightariii, fyou please.)
a. four cents. We refer our neiehbor 10 quota.
tons in Nashville papers of these respective
dates"
This difference in prices is attributable, says
the Wing TO .slhe fact, we'll understood in the
commercial world, that nearly, if not quite he
whole profits from free trade d low duties, are
realized by the Foreign party" This may be a
well understood fact In that commercial world
which looks upon the protective policy with ia
vor, but with that portion Of the commercial
world which regards the restrictive system as
Injurious to trade, the fact Is understood other
wise.
Our neighbor refers Us to The Nashville papers
for quotations as TO prices. We have made
thai reference, and we find The following in the
Wing Of June, 1912:
ave quote sugar, from The store, ordinary 5
a 6 cts., fair 10 prime 6 az cts. by hid; J Ct.
higher by Dbl; G. fee III I2a Cts"
This quotation suggests aremark-sugar, un.
der the tariff If 1912, has fallen 10 .--aIfd
this our ncighbor sets down as the effect OF The
tariff But Coffee has fallen great deal more
Than sugar, and yet coffee is free artic'e!-
This fact blows Up all the theory OF our nrghoor
on this SUBJECT.
But by reference to the Wing Of May 3lst.
1912, we find another quotation, which may
suggest remark
"Average lists Tennessee and Alabama cotton
9 a61."
By reference 10 the Wing of February, 1914
we find Tennessee cotton quoted at cents -
Ii appears then that whilst the price Of sugar
has fallen der the tariff Of 1912, cotton also
has fallen eqnaly as much. Our ne'ghb y
glorifes the tariff for bringing down sugar-bo,
when il comes 10 the price of cotton, The tariff
ceases to operate IS
These references are az nom sustaining The
position Of our Neighbour much less demonsira.
tingsihe fact that the fureign:producersp pay the
tariff duty. We Understa and the resort to the
Coleman letter--itis siways The last argument,