The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1890-05-08
AND pHn SUGAR
BOUNTY,


Those who heard Mcliinley'a great
tariff speech OF 1888, VIII femem,
Der what no said about the proposed
sugar bounty, lie admitted that such
"A bounty would be direct tax ON the
people, ana he said that the
people would never stand such di.
rect tax, Two years have rolled around
since then and now Mckinley, aa chair
man OF the Ways and Means Committee
reportRa bill with the same direct Ax
that he opposed and denounced ~ 1888
This Raises a very serious question IN
the minds OF those Republicans OF in-
telligenGe aud character, who have
been sincere advocates OF the h0'ealled
doctrine OF Protection, They very
naturally enquire what has caused THIS
great change Ia the alleged convictions
Of Mckinley on the protective policy,
This tarlltI bill Of Moklnley'a com
mlttee Ia not the child OF Congress. nor
is II the Outgrowth OF tho Republican
platform on the tariff, Far from H. ~
ID the first born of the Republican
Ways and Means Committee, OF which
Mckinley la chief,
Why has Mckinley abandoned the
theory of Protection on the only article
of American consumption that IN uni
yersally consumed by the American
peOple2 This Ia a question we W0nld
like 10 have some one answer who can,
we know we are on rock bottom IN
this vital matter, and lest some poorly
informed admirer Of our Napoleonlc
champion may think otherwise, let us
proceed 10 prove u,
We have In our possession q portion
of the debate on the Mills bill IN 1888,
when the sugar bounty theory, (noW
supported by Mckinley was up for ais
ousaiOn We propose 10 quote from
the Hon, VIM. ID. Kelley OF PennhylyA-
mia, (nOw dead) from whom Mckinley
claims 10 have learned his lirat leasqnb
In the great humanitarian ~ doctrine
of the Protection OF American mus
the time Ia the 7th of July, 1883, and
the occasion Ia the amendment TO- tht
Mills bill, offered by Mr. Cannon or IL
linola. 10 aubBtltute u bounty TO the hu'
Gar growers, instead of u Protective
tariff. Read and ponder well what
Mr. Kelley, (the father OF protcction)
then said III.
III am surprIaed TO hear the gentle
man from illinois (Cannon) make an
assault upon the platform recently
adopted by the Republican party,
(NOte:-ThiB platform was written ny
Mckinley The system OF bountlta
had been proposed 70 the country un'
der the highest auspices, ~ had been
lfst proposed 10 the American people,
under the auspices Of George washing,
ton. Ninetyelght years have passed
aimee then, and In no Instance has a
bounty been given direct 10 an indus
trv. 80 If the duties on
sugar are wrong let them be righted
and made proper, but gentlemen should
remember that the Republican party
has declared not for the establishment
of the imperial system Of bonntioH, not
/ for the maintdiRdRoo of the American
/ yyyteW 0f Protection
Why should Republican voices be
raised In alandeT Of the partyB plat
form, and 10 say that Americans were
incompetent 10 produce sugar, but
| lllNNN w lAlh ~ LNNA'I "'' Nv N'''''
kind Of q Republican
Mfr. Kelly said much more on the
same subject, but We have quoted
enough Mr.. Mckinley also came
10 the aid OF Mr., Kelley and helped
him 20 defeat the sugar bounty amend
ment of the Western free trade Repub'
licans; 80 called.
Is II not passing strange therefore
that the man who wrote the Chicago
platform OF 1888, and who defended the
only Interpretation Of II, ag given by
Mckinley, whenitwas less than 10 days
old; should now be found the adyo'
cate of free trade In sugar, with the
Vicious and imperial system OF bounty.
Have we not a right 10 assume and
10 say that Mckinley is nothing but u
wabbler and q trimmer on the tarili.
That no has no well grounded oonyio'
tions on the subject.
Hls record, made officially on the
floor Of Congress proves his
We shall refer TO this subject again.