The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1888-10-19
NOT "A PLAIN STATEMENT.

The Herald -Dissemiaafoy, In an article
nearly two columns long, under the cap.
ton of"A Plain Statement" makes some
OF the most egregIously absurd blunders
that We have met with In this campaign.
The bcnightcd scrawler Of the self lf.appoint.
ed grange organ says that the 40 per cent.
duty levied upon sacks used by farmers Is
not added to the price which farmers have
TO pay. Now We submit that such a state.
ment Is too absurd and ridiculous for
moments serious thought II would be
just a. reasonable and truthful to say that
the freight on the sacks from Calcutta to
San Francisco Is not added TO the price the
farmer has to pay. But the biunderhead
who deals out tariff nonsense 10 his readers
finds nothing better TO support this blood
sucking scheme To rob the farmers than his
statement above referred 10. As we have
shown before, more than nine e.tenths OF ali
the sacks uscd on this coast are imported,
and the duty Is just a. surely added 10 the
price whic. the farmer pays a. the original
cost at Calcutta II, and while II appears
that the selfappointed grange editor has
not sufficient mental eaiiLer 10 comprehend
50 plain proposition, yet every other man
OF ordinary intelligence comprebends the
proposition upon its statement wIthou, ar.
guincnt. There IL absolutely no reason
for pacing duty on jute or jute sacks,
for jute Is not grown In this country, and
not one In ten Of the sacks used Is manu-.
faetured here. Who Is protected here by
putting duty on juie' No one. Who Is
protected by putting 90 per cent. duty on
juie sacksS A small, Insignificant jute
taetory At Oakland. California, that Il run
by Chinese laborcrs and few imported
Scotch factory girls. And the dolt that
runs the sheet up the way would tax the
farmers and miners of this coast from six
10 eight hundred thousand dollars every
year TO protect that ineasly concern. Bet.
ter that the farmers should buy out that
concern At so cents on the dollar and then
pension every employee there than pay
this enormous tax. 1--WE dcprecate the
selfish spirit that attaches .he load OF
political question to the deiestable iute sack
that has been folsted upon the Pacific
coast farmer" says the editor up the way.
oh, indeed' Who loaded II thus9 The
leaders whom you blindly follow without
ever asking where you are being led. aThe
facts are that II will require the united ef.
fort OF all classes. irrespective Of political
affinity, TO relieve the farmers from the
sack load that lays a tax upon every bushel
oil wheat they sell, says this editor that is
constantly posing before the public as the
special friend OF the farmer Then, why
do you stand back and refuse TO assist 10 re.
move this tax of $50 on every SIoo worth
OF sacks used by the farmerss Why DO
you raise your voice against Il when others
attempt to remove this bvrdens You say
that you want TO protect the iutc manufaci.
urer and therefore you want to keep the
duty on. But you have said rs 81, ongly
as your limited use of language will allow
that this duty il not added to the price of
the sacks. II this Is so, Is Il not possible
for you to see, what all others see, then,
that the duty does not protect the manu-
facturer' Is Il not possible for you to
understand this plain proposition: That II
the price of sacks are not increased by i'm
posing duty on imported ones, then the
American manufacturer Of such sacks re.
ceiyes no benefit or protection for his bust.
ness by the levying of such duty, and, that
so far as he Is concerned, II would make
no difference in his business whether the
duty Is removed or not. Again that paper
says: ave are ready and anxious to for
ward every effort to tighten the burdens
by adopting measures to cheaper the sack
as long as they stay, which they must d.
for some time, and admitting the raw ma
terial, which is not produced In this coun
try, free, Is step in that direction, but tn
throwing down of the barriers and allow
Ing foreign country to govern the prices
unlimited, Is not in that direction but In tn
opposite." Il Is difficultto be patient reaG
ing such a mess of nonsense. Well, yes,
will be a step in the direction of maxim
sacks cheaper by putting the raw materii
on the free list, but this cheapness apple
only to such sacks as are manufacture
here, and as not one In ten is manufacture
here the high price remains on all u
others, which are imported and made de
er on account of the duty of $40 on evel
$Ioo worth brought from abroad. No,
then, here is the mest favorable opportuni
ever offered to satisfy the anxiety whiC
you groan under to make sacks chea
Just give in your adhesion to the propos
to put sacks on the free list and you W
then be proving your faith by your work
If you are so ready to cheaper sacks WI
not propose some way to do it9 "
have offered no method or way to 90
You can not hide your real motive behi
the general statement that you want
cheaper sacks. Those who are burden,
by this heavy duty demand that you sha
J show ycur faith In words.
I'll ~~~@~~-~s~-@~@~~~~