Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-10-19


The Senate Tariff Bill tliifera frorl. the Mills
House Bill. IN that it scas framed a0ttA 4ejag-
ence to american interests and not in behalf
of foreign interests. It takes in view the policv
of making the articles necessary for human
life by our own labor, and not by foreign labor
and whether the wages of Anne lean laborers
shall depend upon the wages of European
laborers. 1t contemplates the protection of
all forms of American labor and production
Fal'ey Iirginian.
Now let US see if there is really anything
in this declaration of cur neishbor, as far
as it may be taken to indicate the purposes
of the party for which it speaks. The
Mills Bill reduces the protection on sugar
Sl2 600 .000. 1t was denounced by the Re.
publicans as free trade" measure-that
tlresome old cry-and as one calculated to
destroy an American Industry. The Re
publican Senate Tariff Bill, which cur CO.
temporary says was framed With refer
encs to American interests y s'for the
protection of oil forms of American
labor and products reduces The
protection on sugar $27 600, 00O Now let
US read the opinion of the father Of pro-
lection in this country. Hon. VIM. D.
Kelley Of Pennsylvania, on the value of
sugar as an American interest" La the
House of Representatives, July 18th, 1855,
(see Congressional Record, p 6495), that
distinguished Republican arguing against
the sugar clause of the Mills Bill, said:
Louisiana is even now recovering from five
years of war, during which her cane-helds
were overgrown and her machinery and the
buildings that housed it went to decay. I'm
poverished by war, ruined as the people of all
the Confederate States were, their banks gone,
their insurance companies without capital,
their private fortunes exhausted, people who
had been making about 500, 900, 600 pounds of
sugar per year found that in 1S64-'e5 thew
could produce but 10, 500, 900 pounds, though
in 1861 '62 they had produced 529, COG, 00O
pounds. Now, sir, beginning at the close of
the war with wasted estates and fortunes
broken, they have, under protection, raised
the crop from less than IL 900, 600 pounds to
1903 600, 900 pounds in 1SS2-'03 In the decade
frnm 1867 to 1876, inclusive, they raised
l, 121 600. 600 pounds of sugar, In the next
decade the l, 100, 600, 900 had grown to 2. 297,-
100000 pounds, or largely more than doubled
III decade. Sir, 1 would plant myself upon
the record of Louisiana's sugar growing since
the close of the war to prone tile 6eneticenee Of
the Amae'Ican p'otectj0e system.
x
Take the sorghum industry. In the district
of my friend from Kansas Mr.. Funston they
have been struggling for years. 1t is three
or four years since MIR. Parkinson, an old
friend of mine before he became citizen of
Kansas returned with three of his fellow
citizens from investigating the growing of
sugar beets and the manufacture of sugar in
Germany, and sat an hour with me in yonder
cloak-room. Last year, having introduced
under the supervision of the Government the
distributive process which that committee
had brought home with them, sorghum was
grown and manufactured with profit of more
than 100 per cent. beyond that derivable from
wheat or corn in the neighborhood in which
1t was grown. The sugar was made success
fully in commercial quantities and sold at
profitable prices i'll the markets of Kansas and
neighboring States. The success was SO great
that ten factories were to have been planted
in different parts of Kansas, mainly, if not
exclusively, by New England capital.
Ard then Mr. Peters (Rep.) of Kansas,
made the following appeal to the House
against the $12 100000 reduction by the
Mills Bill:
I plead on behalf of my people that you
will not strike down this infant industry,
which presents to the agricultural portion of
my State so grand an outlook for the future
I plead with my friends on this floor that
they will not by their act strike down this
industry, throttle it in its very infancy-an
industry which promises SO much relief to the
agricultural people Of this country, who need
the fostering care of the Government.
These are out few OF the appeals
against the passage Of the Mills Bill, by
Republican members contained in the
same number of the "Record. So impor-
tant did they deem the encouragement of
this American industry" that Mr..
Cannon (Repl of ILL.,, ff9red an amend
ment to pay bounty of 2 cents pound
on sugar and 6 cents gallon on moiasses,
to the producers Of them in the United
States
The Democrats went straight along,
defeated the bounty amendment, sand
made a reasonable reduction of S12 600 coo
ia the sugar tax. For this, the bill was
denounced as free trade bill. The Re
publican Senate substitutes FOR it bill l.
reducing the protection $27 ,000 600, and the
Vsrginian compliments it as bill FRAMED
with reference to American interests"
We should like, in the midst of all this
muddle our Republican friends have got
ten into by order of the Manufacturers,
to once more hear the voices Of Mr.. KEEL
ley and Mr.. Peters-the former Of WHOM
says, 4 plant myself upon the record of
louisiana sugar growing since the close
Of the war to prove the beEefcencs of the
American protective system.'' and the
latter Of whom pleaded so elcQuently with
the Democrats not to ''strlke down this
industry and throttle it III It's very liz
fancy" The sound of those voices might
possibly recall our neighbor from his Goa
dition OF temporary free srade' aberra-
ton as far as sugar is concerned.
ONE WHO FOUND OUT IT WAS
4 TAX.
OF course the Tariff is a tax. It is eth
er that or nothing. A guard for the pro-
lection Of anything don'G carry gun