The Republican journal., 1888-08-16
The Duty on Sugar.



THE DEBATE ON THE MILLS BILL.
Mr.. Milliken. Mr.. Chairman. in view of the
fact that our friends on the other side have
just voted to place duty of 6s per cent. on
sugar. and seem to stand by their schedule on
that subject, desire the Clerk to read an eX.
tract from the Democratic platform which is
pertinent to this question.
The Clerk read as follows
1t is rcpugnant to the creed of Democracy that
by such taxation the cost of the necessaries of life
should be unjustiabiy increased to all people.
Judged by Democratic principles, the interests of
the people are betrayed when, by unnecessary tan
ation trusts and combinations are permitted to
ist which, while unduly enriching the few that
combine rob the body of our citizens by depriying
them of the benefits of natural competition.
Mr.. Miliken. l ask attention to the para
graph just read, because our friends on the
other side during the whole debate Oh this
subject have seemed to be oversenstive upon
the matter of "trusts." Hence. l have caused
to he read the proposition in their platform
on this subject, in order to show how much
difference it makes whether this matter of
trusts" touches them or somebody else.
When we protested against placing lumber
on the free-list, because great industry in
Maine and other Northern States, obliged to
compete with the lumber product of Canada.
would thereby be destroyed, gentlemen cried
out frantcally against the lumber trust They
were asked to tell us where such Il trust exist
ed. or to produce some evidence that it existed
claims of the existence of lumber trust
dwndled down to the statement of supposed
trust by the gentleman from Iowa Mr.. Weav-
er.l
And no proposition has been more definitely
made and persistently repeated and reiterated
than that these trusts We're created and sup
ported by the tariff upon the articles involved
in the different trusts. 1t was in vain that we
pointed them to the Standard Oil trust, where
there is no duty to operate. that great monop-
oily which is said TO have dcmoralzed the
Democracy of one State at least and to have
been efficient in producing political results not
in conformity with the free will of the people.
1t was in vain that we held up the fact that
trusts existed in other countries than our
own and without the influence of Il tariii. AL
ways when we sought to protect any industry
marked for destruction in the Mills bill trust
was imagined and paraded as a scarc-crow to
frighten gentlemen into the free-tralc ranks.
But here is an industry where real. iEdiS-
putabe trust exists. \ trust that within Il
few months has arbitrarily raised the price of
sugar | cent per pound levying this tax upon
every one of 6n,000 900 people. to all of whom
that article Of food is necessity. levying il
not for revenue purposes. not to encourage in
creased production and competition and Il con-
sequent reduction of prices. but to decrease
production and fill the pockets of the members
of that trust. then the abhorrence of trusts on
the part of our Democratic friends disappears,
and they stand here and vote for Il duty Of Is
per cent on this necessary article Of feed. and
this is a specific duty which no undervaluation
can reduce.
What has become of the lou,ilv-prote>ted
anxiety of gentlemen on the other side for the
dear people whom they pretend 50 much to
love: For the consumer for whom they eN-
press 50 lnuch desire to furnish cheap food:
Why, Mr.. Chairman. if there is a duty upon
any article that oppre>seS the people it is the
duty upon sugar. All the people use it. As
- 10 IN il Hn
est food charge i'll nearly every family in the
land. and yet to protect one-tenth of the uuau-
tity of sugar necessary to supply the demands
of our own people, and without any reason
able hope of increasing the product. this bill
provides that we shall pay tariff of IS per
cent. upon ten times as much sugar as We pro-
duce. This is simply outrageous when COM
pared with the way in which the Mills bill
deals with great Northern industries that are
sufficient in capacity to meet the wants of our
people. and which by competition have caused
4 reduction of prices of more than 81 ror
cent. in the last twenty years.
in the course of the ,ebatc this morning the
gentleman from Louisiana MIR. Wilkinson
criticised me because in comparing the duty
upon sugar with the duty upon some products
OF my own state had raised, aS he said, Il
tional question.
Why. gentlemen. you raise the sectional que,-
tion yourselves in the bill which you have sub
mitted to this Housc-makc distinction be-
tween the sections OF the country Ill treating
one section to free trade an, low duties and
the other to high duties. simply stated the
fact. The fact came out most clearly in the
discussion of the amendment of my colleague
from Maine Mr. Dingleyl this afternoon.
When he proposed to reduce the duty ON >u
gar to Al per ccnt.-a duty equal TO the aver
age duty upon all articles in the dutiahlc list
how readily our friends on the other side vot-
cd that proposition down and insisted on GS
Per cent
If you look at the schedule you will tind that
while the duties on Northern productions are
to-day not more than an average of - per
cent. the duty on Southern productions. in
Guiding the high duties upon sugar and rice. is
more than - per cent. Still. when we ask for
something like a fair equalization of duties,
yen say we are raising sectional question.
Ah gentlemen, you like to put the State of
Maine on the free-list. 1t seems good to you
to put the industries. great and small. of many
of the Northern Republican States there
reduce them to the lowest limit, but when we
propose to give YOU even Il homeopathic dose
Of vour own medicine it seems to freeze the
very marrow in your bones. Laughter and
APPLAUSE.