Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1883-11-29
Tariff Revision.

Wisconsin is an inland state COM
paratively speaking, and the agitation
of the tariff subject does not materially
effect her interests, except as it may
tend to increase or decrease the general
prosperity of the country. Her inter-
Interests are entirely different from those
of Louisiana or Pennsylvania, yet what
effects the general prosperity of either
of those states effects hers. The atten-
ton of the whole country will soon be
centered on congress, and good many
branches of trade arc waiting breath
lessly to see what Democratic Con-
gress will do in regard to the tariff
question. If that august assemblage
would give their attention to other
matters and not tinker with the ques-
ton. not only would they receive the
heartfelt thanks of the country at large
but this wisdom of the party would be
so manifest as to considerably heiehten
their prospects of winning in the next
election, but as soon as they commence
parleying about this great subject, on
which the democracy is so hopelessly
divided, the business men OF the country
will lose confidence in them as party.
No such happy event is likely to occur
as the Democrats pursuing such n
course, but they will go just as far as
they dare with the subject in their en-
deavors to satisfy the clamorings of the
different sections of their party. What
President Arthur will recommend in
his coming message to Congress on tar
riff revision is matter of considerable
speculation, but it is not expected he
will get very far out of the way from
the position his party has taken. Be-
cause we hope the Democrats will not
NEEDLE with the question of tariff reve-
nue. is not to say that there are not
some important reforms necessary.
The high tariff extremists in the last
congress proposed to make liquor and
tobacco free or nearly so, and the Re-
publican party put its foot on it very
quick, and why should it not. Why
should we abolish the tariff on whiskey
and tobacco, which bring us in $780,
100000 revenue each year, while such
outrageous high taxes remain on ar
ticles of necessity, such rs sugar, cotton
and wooden goods, iron and steel manu-
features and crockery. The Republican
party is thoroughly committed against
such q course. 1t seems more probable
that the President will recommend
free sugar than the abolition
Of the revenue ON whiskey and to-
bacco. Sugar is an article of ycessity
rather than luxury. The re' enue de-
rived from sugar is about $4,000, 900 a
year-is Just about the amount that
could be spared while the people would
reap the direct benefits of it. The aboli-
ton of the whiskey and tobacco tax
would reduce the revenue too much and
no one would be especially benefited.
The sugar duty is one from which a GER
tain measure of relief may be expected
1t is the nearest approach we now have
to duties for revenue only, with the ex-
ception perhaps of the duties on wines,
spirits and cigars. We produce in this
country less than one-tenth of the sugar
we consume. None but Louisianans
and Texans have anything to lose by
abolishing the duties on raw sugar.
The democracy is in favor of protecting
these few sugar planters. but opposed
to protecting the workingmen in north
ern factories. Only one-tenth of the
amount the duties take from our pockets
ON sugar is for protection. while fully
nine-tenths goes to the support of the
government These therefore are about
the last duties that free-traders would
abolish. There are some things of the
tariff on which freetraders and pro-
tiou,sts and democrats and republicans
stand together. A few years ago leading
free-trade democrats united with pro-
tection republicans in abolishing the tea
and coffee duties, and why should they
NOT stand together in abolishing the
tariff on sugar also. which would be a
direct benefit to all?