The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1888-01-19
THE protection;sts want the tariff taken

The protectionists want the tariff taken
off sugar, but would pay bounty to
sugar growers for every pound of sugar
manufactured. This is whipping the
devil around the post They argue:
Sugar is a necessity. The United States
are unable to raise sufficient sugar for
home consumption. The tariff should be
reduced so that consumers may purchase
this necessity cheaper. But the sugar
growers must be protected and the PEG
pie generally are to be taxed to pay
bonus to them.
How does this make sugar cheaper to
to the consumer? He may buy sugar
cheaper than he does now, but he is taxed
upon other articles he purchases to make
good the loss to sugar growers by reason
of the removal of the tariff. It is simply
scheme to divide a portion of the sur
plus, which comes from the people, among
the sugar growers and hoodwink the peo-
pie into the belief tina! they are getting
sugar cheaper. Why should bounty be
paid to sugar growers and not to produc-
ers of wheat? Why should the govern
ment tax the man who raises potatoes
and give the proceeds to the sugar grower?
1t is fact that bounty is now paid
on every pound Of sugar exported from
this country. If the purpose is to stim-
ulate the production of sugar SO that the
| domestic product would measurably sup
ply the home demand, why does our pres
ent tariff, which is so highly eulogized by
| protectionists, encourage the expectation
of this product, thereby causing scare
ity in this country and increasing the
| price to consumers?
Are wooden fabrics less necessity than
| sugar? Is there sufficient wool raised in
this country to meet the wants of the
| people? Has the wool product under
| the fostering care of a protective tariff,
| increased SO as to warrant the expecta-
ton that in time there will be no need of
importation of this article? Statistics
show that there has been decrease of
the wool crop and so the arguments
which apply to the removal of the tariff
on sugar are equally applicable to wool.
| Why then is there distinction? The
fact is it is distinction without differ
ence and the proposed removal of the
tax upon sugar is a delusion. 1t is a
gross deception upon the people; a willy
subterfuge worthy the uncandid methods
of protectionists who have wheedled
laborers and farmers into the belief
that a high tariff rebounds to their
benefit There is to be no actual remis-
sion of taxes. What the sugar grower
now gets from his own imposition of the
tariff he will get through the government
The government Will be collecting agent
instead of the grocer, but the consumer
will pay just the same tax.
The people should demand an actual
not an apparent reduction of taxes. The
consumer gains nothing by getting one
article cheap while having the reduction
on this added to the cost of another
article. This is just what the protection
lists purpose doing with sugar, and as
they furnish the manufacturer an oppor-
tunity to make large profits while pro-
testing they are conserving the interests
of the laborer, SO they will insist they
are making sugar cheap to the consumer
while collecting from HIM in other ways
the amount he saves on sugar to be given
the sugar grower as reimbursement for
his loss. How is 1t possible for the con-
sumner to purchase cheaper if the manu-
facturer continues to get the benefit OF
the tax? The government has no source
of revenue except from the people and
the bounty to sugar growers comes from
the peOple