The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1890-01-17

Every argument made TO sustain IN
permanency Of our high war taxes Is bases
upon false assumption. The Timls-
1foanfainser IN speaking Of objections to The
Mills bill saysi "The Mills Bill OF the last
session was particularly Objectionable, be
cause Il placed productions In the north
such as wool, Iron, etc, industries which
were susceptible ofgreat development, on
the free list, and retained nearly the full
duty on sugar, which was produced only
N two or three southern states, and then
not In sufficient quantity 10 supply the 10
cal demand" This statement js made &c
support The charge that the Mills bi.I was
framed exclusively In The interest Of The
south. The statement that iron was put
on the free list IN the Mills bill Is not true
but y seems necessary to make iIis state.
ment IN order 70 maintain tie allegation
that the Mills bill was gotten up In the
interest ofthe south. IL the 1foGHtaiaesv
go wrapped up In Its devotion 10 the wa
tariff that Il is willing to risk It's reputation
for truth and yeraeity In order to stigma
lie the Mills bill and tariff reform as be-.
Ing In the interest OF the south, II
would seem 80. That paper would make
Its readers believe that wool Il grown only
the north. Now nearly two-flths of
the entire wool crop of The country Is
raised In the south and democratic states,
which shows that thil objection 10 tariff
reduction was based on fa,se assumption
The MosRfaiseer dIscioses ils irrevocabIy
fixed sectionalism and pariisansbip by de-
claring that Il Is In favor OF putting sugar
on the free list and giving the farmers .
bounty TO engage in growing beets and
manufacturing sugar out Of them. Dur
Ing the last campaign Il proclaimed loudly
against what II was pleased 10 call the
seetionallsm of the Mills bill, and new It
proposes 10 put sugar on the free list, thus
taking awav all The protection The south
has, II I. be true that iron and wool are
productions OF the north only. How
could seciionalIsm be more distinc lively
narrow and selfish than thiss But II has
been very favorI,e habit Of the Mssn-
f~iHesv TO denonnce the DEAorRAr as q
'sfree irsde Journal because |: favored
free wool. II Il be true that man who
favors taking the duty from wool which
mounts to about Ss.ooo,ooo year Il a
sfree trader then Is not a man much
more afree trades" who IA yors renewing
500 100000 duties from sugari Tn
heaafaiaesy says that II giving bounty
TO sugar producers is robbery. Gas the
DgMocRAr called I'd then the Mills bill
was whole sale robbery for II aimed 10
tax every man Ia the country who used
sugar for the benefit OF Mississippi and
Louisiana planters. What pity that pro-
tectionlsts will not consent TO meetaii these
questions candldly and fairly. Now does
not tae Moasfainssr know that the Mills
bill found very heavy tar or duty al
ready on sugar. placed there by the repub-
ilcan party In lS67i Does not that paper
kno what the Mills bill sought to vsdse
the already high tar on sugar, and that
its party voted against thia reduciioni :
Then, why say that the Mills bill aimed TO
tak every msn In the country who used
sugar for the benefit Of Mississippi and
Louisiana plantersi The purpose 10 very
apparent Il l. characteristic of those
who are called upon 10 maintain an abb
surdity or = wrong. 10 confuse tho public
BY raising = very great smoke. The
Nosafaissev says Il wants TO keep the tax
duty on jute. (and this means keeping a
continual tax on the flrmer) In order that
some invention OF n subsii tuie TO take the
place Of jute may be made. But we have
had that duty on jute for about twenty
years and our farmers and others who use
juse have been paying this tax all this
time and no invcntion OF a substitute yet.
Even upon It's own faulty plan the time
has now arrived when the Msssfaiacs'
should speak at least one word for the
wheat raiser. Come join the DEMocRAT
demanding that this congress shall re.
move this ncnsensIcai and obnoxious tas
from juie and jute sacks.