Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1890-10-30

down to what little issue there is in this
campaign: Now, aside from little mere
campaign, my friends? Now, will discuss
this to you in my own plain. blunt way, just
as would address jury of our grangers
up the country. Now. what is it2 What is
it they have to say in this campaign? Oh,
they say There is that great Mckinley bill.
That is terrible thing That is the
only issue there is. Well, now,
WHAT ABOUT THE M'HNLEY BILL,
my friends? will tell you about the Me-
Kinley bill, it is good deal like you and I,
it is a picture of human frailty. You and
aim at perfection, but we are unable to
reach it, and so with the Mckinley bill The
it ~ perfect bill, but as Macauley has truly
said, 'the science of government is an ex-
detrimental science" So Of all things in the
matter OF government, there is nothing 80
much matter of experiment. as making
and preparing tariff bill. Two years ago,
Brother Mills, of the Democratic party,
wrostied with the subject, and hs found it
most difficult subject. This year the Re-
publican party has wrestled with it, and on
the whole want to tell you (sld shall
enter more into detail) while think the bill
has soma faults, I think on the whole it is
friends, (aad that is the great nub of this
controversial. it is q better bill than the
Mills bill. Great laughter and applausel.
II want to keep you, in this tariff question,
to the plain issue. You who believe in pro-
lection could reasonably like protection. It
bill is not as good bill es it ought to be, it
is sufficient for the Republicans to show that
it is better than the Mils bill or better than
free trade. [App:ause.1 Now, that is all
the Democrats have to offer us. They can
point to the past, to the Mills bill, and as to
the future. take them today on the hustings
and on the stump and through their papers,
what is it that they recommend? Do they
come and cay we want different kind of
protection? No, the whole sum and sub
stanc of their arguments, the sum and
substance of their attacks is that we ought
to have free trade in this country. APP
P,lause.] Now, as ! said moment ago,
there are some features in the Mckinley
bill don't like. For instance, the wooden
and worsted schedule, don't think, my
friends, after 30 years of protection, that
should have been raised at all But that Is q
minor matter.
''There is another matter IN the Mckinley
bill,
1T HAs GIVEN Us FREE SUGAR;
and do you know what that means to the in
terests OF this country? It means the shak-
ing OFF from the shoulders of upwards of
eO.NO, 000 OF people of taxation OF nearly
81 head from every man, woman and child
in this country. [Applause.]
Snow want to call your attention to two
leading features of the two bills, the Nc
Kinley bill and the Mills bill. The leading
feature of the Mills bill was free wool, il
you remember. Now in regard to free wool,
and read from book compi ed
by the treasury departments at the
request of the COMMITTEES of ways and
means of the Fifteth congress Mr.. Mills
committee) hold the book in my hand here
the nesting is over. 1t appears from that
that the effect of putting wool on the free
list in 1888, of the bill, based upon the
statistics OF the last fiscal year of 1887, would
simply relieve the people of So, 300, 600 Of
taxation In other words, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1887, there were SIS, 2O6,-
967.97 worth of wool imported. and the
equivalent ad valorem tax On that was
$3.50, 654.73. In other words. that was the
whole amount involved in the matter of
FREQ wool, and the whole amount
that the bill proposed to relieve
the American people from under
Mckinley bill. viii take the statistics of
the same year. l had occasion at that time
to compile them on the sugar question and
molasses question, and as they come at the
same time and cover the same period as the
Mills bill, ! will read them. They were in
corporated in a little speech made at that
time. For the fiscal year ending June 30,
1887, we imported into this country, S60, $685.
684 worth Of sugar; and on that sugar there
was lowed and collected from tho American
people S56, 507, 49S, or amounting to rate of
62.Of per cent. On every dollars worth of
sugar imported into this country we paid a
duty of S2.O4 per cent. Now. the Mckinley
bill
uaa Rpr1EvED rt1p snrrp1r.N proprr
of that tax [great applause it has relieved
US as against the six million and odd hum
dred thousand dollars on the wool in the
Mills bill, and We can put up to the Ameri-
can people and show that there has been
lifted, by the grace of God and the McKin-
ley bill, $56,0Oo,0Oo. Tremendous ap-
plause.
had to do about the sugar? Sugar was
mainly Southern product. They had
tenderness for it, 1t is another thing; the
sugar tax comes nearer than any other of
being a revenue tax. The wool tax is pro-
tective tax, for this reason: Every state,
from the state of Maine even to far Alaska.
can raise wool of some kind. It is matter
that can be cultivated and built up by means
of protection; but not SO with our sugar IN
dustry-at least that part of it that comes
out of the pure cane. That is confined to
limited area, and statistics show that, in spite
of the high duty of 80 per cent, the product
of Louisiana and part of Mississippi, the
product of the sugar plantations has rather
diminished than increased, 80 that the sugar
tax. unless it may operate on sorghum and
beets (Which is matter of experiment. SO
far), outside of that it is purely revenue
tax, and in no sense is a protective tax, be-
cause protective tax must be of that char
acter that it can build up an industry and
increase 1t to such an extent that we can be
self-sustainine.
Nov, ] was about to say (and will read
from this same Democratic official docu-
ment) what did the Mills bill offer us on the
sugar question? Tread from captulation
at the end Of this document, schedule E.
This is for the fiscal year 1887, the year next
total importation q will read the whole
column. SO you can see distinctly what itis),
total Importation, $68, 897, 1O2.27;' tax on il,
$56, SIC. 601.67. Present rate of duty, 82.O4
per cent; proposed rate of duty by the Mills
bill, 65.64 per cent. In other words
THE MILLS BILL
Only proposed to cut down the duty On
sugar from an ad valorem equivalent
rate of 81 per cent to 1884 per cent, SO you
can see not much more than Is per cent; if
figure correctly, not hardly quarter of
the duty. Now, you can take and apply the
figures yourself: 65 p cent, or sc, 600, coo.
the Mills bill proposed to relieve. Now,
there you have it. The whole American
people by the Mckinley bill are relieved
from this tax on sugar; nothing is left now
except mere bagatelle tax OF half cent a
pound to protect the refners. The Mills
bill left this. as said, for double reason.
The Democrats in tho first place. were not
anxious to injure the planters of Louisiana,
as they thought it would, in the next place,
of all taxes dear to the Democratic heart
was the sugar tax, because it was revenue
instead of n DrOtectinry tax
But there was another niger back of it.
[Laughter.] Years ago treaty was made
with the Hawaiian republic. to admit free