The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-07-11
Political Tariff TlnkerIne.

Ii any evidence were wanting to convince
the American people that the Mills tariff re-
form bill as an economical measure is
fraud, that 1t follows no straight line of Geo.
nomic policy, but twists and turns to favor
interests of Democratic States and infiuen-
tai individuals. the action of the House
upon Mr. Dingley's amendment to the sugar
schedule still further reducing the duty, and
the debate thereon, have supplied all that is
needed. Sugar is one of the necessaries.
and 1t is the necessaries of life that the
Democrats havelbeen protesting that they
purposed to relieve from taxation. Mr..
Dingley's amendment proposed the reduc-
tion of the sugar duty about one-half This
would have left sugar with larger duty than
the average duty of the present tariff. The
amendment would, too, have reduced the
surplus about $2S,oOO,00O and would have
brought about large reduction in the cost
of sugar to the consumer.
But Mr. Mills and his free trade retainers
opposed the amendment and defeated it.
Why? Not because it was in conflict with
any principle which the committee on WAYS
and means .have professed to be guided by.
Tor 1t was move to reduce the cost of living.
and that is one of the objects the committee
have always claimed to have in view, They
have never tired of telling the country that
they were in favor Of putting wool on the
free list because 1t would benefit the poor
man by cheapening the price of his clothing.
Why did they not avail themselves of this
opportunity to put the poor man still further
under obligation to the party which they
represent by reducing the cost of the peor
mans livingP The answer is obvious. Lou
isiana, which raises all the sugar that is pro-
duced in this country, is Democratic State.
and contributes eight electoral votes to the
Democratic column. To reduce the tariff ON
sugar would be to expose the Democratic
sugar planters Of that State to foreign COM
petition, and the effect of this might be to
imperil the Democratic chances of carving
that State in November. But it appeared in
debate that there was still further reason
for this refusal to reduce the duty on sugar,
though this one would of itself undoubtedly
have proved sufficient. Mr.. Havemeyer, the
great New York refner and a member of the
sugar trust, had been to see the committee
He had been a good Democrat in the last
campaign and had rendered efficient aid in
the glorious work of electing Grover Cleye-
land to the Presidency. Mr.. Havemeyer had
proved so potent with the committee that
they had revised the sugar schedule at his
request and put up the sugar duty above the
point to which they had originally intended
to reduce it.
But the performance of the committee in
regard to sugar is by no means an isolated
case. Other Democratic industries have
been treated with the same tenderness with
no more reason. Thus rice is kept protected
up to the figures of the present tariff, while
salt is put on the free list. Rice is raised in
the South, while salt is manufactured in the
North. To put rice on the free list would
endanger Democratic electoral votes. Put
ting salt there carries with it no such risk.
Every Maine industry of prominence is at
tackled and dealt stunning blow, under the
plea of reducing the cost of living of the
poor man. But when the Southern States
are reached the poor man is forgotten and
politics loom up. The poor laboring man of
that section must still continue to eat rice
protected by duty of 100 per cent, lest the
democracy of the governing classes may be
unfavorably affected. Yet the Democratic
party in convention at st. Louis approved of
this bill as an honest measure of reform. and
made allegiance to it the test of true Democ-