Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1890-09-11

WASHINGTON, D. c. Aug. 90
In the last issue of the Wausau
Pilot-Review, [ find an open letter
addressed to me, by some one
who gives no sign to his identity;
hence, | do not know to whom to
address an answer. [ ask you,
therefore, to publish this reply:
The writer graciousIy admits that
| nave performed my duty as a
representative fairly we'll, as a
newer of wood and drawer of
water" or, in other words, have
looked after things of local inter
est, attended to the calls of
soldiers and other minor matters.
The writer also admits he is not
one of my adherents, but he does
not advise me as to whether he is
an adherent to the principles of the
Republican party or not. This
omission is perpleXing, for if he
has been an adherent of the
Republican party | would call his
attention to the fact that the
Mckinley bill for which he
arraigns me for voting, is almost a
verbatim copy Of the Allison bill
of 1888, upon the schedules and
principles Of which the Republi-
can party fought the battle of the
campaign Of 1883. There are a
few things, however, in the
Mckinley bill that were not in the
senate or Allison bill. The
Mckinley bill places sugar on the
free list, thus saving to the people
sos, 100000 annually, less about
S7,ooo,Ooo which it is estimated
will be paid as a bounty to- the
sugar producers of this country
This bounty is not necessarily to
be paid exclusively to those now
engaged in the raising Of sugar,
but to any who may choose to go
into the business, whether they
live in Kansas or Louisiana. No
one who has given SO close study
to the tariff question as the editor
of The Pilot-RevieW, can be
ignorant Of the fact that France,
Germany and other countries have
adopted the bounty system for the
encouragement of sugar raising,
and that it has worked so success
fully that now France produces
every pound of sugar she
consumes, and some for export,
while Germany produces a large
share of what she consumes; both
countries thus keeping at home a
very large amount OF money that
would otherwise be sent abroad.
Is there any reason why the
United States may not do the
same? Certainly there are no
climatic reasons, and if the United
States can raise the $500, 900, 900
worth of sugar that its people
annually consume and thus keep
its money at home, would it not be
a wise thing to do? The Republic
can party thinks it would and
proposes to try the experiment
The other thing the Mckinley
bill does that the Allison bill does
not, and which is severely CRITICS
ed by the great tariff reformers,
of which The lot-Review editor
is a bright and shining light is to
increase the duty on tin plate from
1 cent to . 2-IO cents. This we
are told will increase the price Of
the poor mans dinner pail and the
farmers milk pans. Temporarily
it will undoubtedly have that effect
but eventually it will cheaper the
price of tin, as competition by
building up manufacturing in this
country has cheapened the price O
other goods that are manufactured
III this country, as the editor Of
that newspaper very we'll knows
There was imported into this
country last year over ST., ooo,ooc
worth of tin, which of course took
out of the country S25,ooo,ooo o
our good money, which. in nc