The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1890-07-25
IT GETS LOST AGAIN.

We know Of no paper that has so great
acuiiy for getting lost, In treating of tbe tariff
question, rs tie Cafifaf journal published
at Salem. II has been giving its reasons
for favoriug the Mckinley bill. II says !.
"Thc Mckinley bill Is measure 10 re-
vise the tariff as pledged by the republican
national platform Of ISSS-t0 retain the
protective feature for American industries
and American labor end at the same time
| reduce the revenue"
But when sugar was put on the free list,
was that retaining the protective features
for American industries"i No, IT was
taklng the only protection" the south had
except that on rice and iron. But then
the south has no rights that republican
ieadert feel bound TO respect, hence Nc
kinley made an exception by putting raw
sugar. ian article raised wholly In the
south,) on the free list, while he retained
or increased II on refined sugar, lmanu-
iaetured Ia The north almost wholly }
This alone Stamps the oill az purely parti-
san and sectional. Can the JoarHai explain
raw sugar, (Which Is produced In large
quantities in this country,) while IL more
than doubled Il on tin, an article not man.
ufactured In this country at alli Tin is
necessity of life. The rich, the poor the
old,th young. all alike have TO use II. The
| whole thing IL an outrage aud people are
fast finding Il out. Again that paper says:
awe favor the bill because 1t seeks to
place a check upon importatIons Of agri-
cultural products, now reaching annually
Ia hundreds OF millions, by increasing the
duties on those articles OF farm produce
now shipped In from abroad In competition
with the American farmer. The bill
makes jute free aud reduces the duty on
cotton bagging. SisaI, manila and binder
twinr go on this free list. The wool duties
are adjusted TO suit the wooi-groweTs and
duty will be placed on the nearly thirty
million dollars worth of hides imported an
nually
But the bill falls TO check the impor,a-
ton OF that agricultural product known as
sugar, but as we said before thi. Is an ag-
ficultural product raised In the south ard
from Mckinley's stand point Is not entitled
TO protection. ''The bill makes jute free"
says the JoEFHdi. That Is 10 benefit the
manufacturer, but there Is quite an increase
In the duty on jute sacks. Mckinley has
the very highest consideration for the man.
ufaeturer Of ju,e sacks but none whatever
for the farmer who has TO use them In
handling his grain. "'rh= wool duties are
adjusted to suit the wool-growers. Indeed!
flow eonsIdera,e Mckinley was of the in
ierest oi the half million people who are
engaged in producing wool, and with what
Indifference did he treat the interests of
the 6s,ooo,ooo who have 10 use wool pro-
ducts. The Journal seems TO hold out the
idea that no one should have any thing 10
say in fixing the amoun, of duty on wool
exeep, the wo1l-growers themseises.
Shame on such partisan snbseviency.
"Silal, manila and binder ;wine go on the
free list j." We regret that the Journal
should resort to mIsrcprc seniation in order
to make defense Of the Mckinley bill.
| The bill has thl- ssros4aian: .'Bindi"g tssins
one ard one fourth cents per pound" And
the senate has raised The twine duty TO one
and one half cents per pound The Jour
na has deceived Its readers about the
twine duty. VIII 1t row be candid enough
10 sci them right on this pointf The journal
says "the MeKiniey bill reduces the tariff
Except sugar. the duty on nearly every
important necessary Of life has been in
creased. Take wool and all kinds of wool.
en- goods-someihing that the poor as we'll
A. the itch mast have aud there has been
large Increase in the duty. Every body
with an ordinary memory remembers how
the republicans comrlained that the Mills
bill made bu, slight reduction In WOODEN
goods. Bu, the E'lls bill reduced the duty
from 70 TO 20 per cent while the McKin-
| ey bill increases i, from 10 10 an average
of 90 per cent. The Journal makes much
ado about the so-ealled protection for the
farmers in the Mckinley bill, but this 'pro-
lection" has been shown time and again
to be fraud, deceit, n shame. OF what
benefit Is II to the Am erican farmer to
Plac. duty of s cents per bushel on corn
or twenty cents per bushel on corn meal,
or fifteen cents per bushel on buckwheat,
and oats, or ten cents per bushel on rye, or
twenty-five per cent ad valorem on wheat
flour. or five cents per gallon on milk, or
three cents each on cabbages, or forty ceuts
per bushei on unions, or FIVE cents per
dozen on eggs, or twenty-five cents per
bishel on apples, or five cents per pound
on bacon, or two cents on beef, pork and
mutton, or five cents per pound on
dressed chickensi All of these articles are
produced In this country rs cheap or
cheaper than in any other. Why, then this
duty9 Simply to rake the vnsophisticated
farmer believe that he is protected equally
with the manufacturers. But the farmer
are day by day opening their ewes TO the
fact that this so-called protection for the
farmer Is all delusion and a snare. The
journal must tell lis readers, also, that hiocs
are put on the free list br the Mckinley
bill.
What's the matter with our republican CO.