The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1891-08-22
TARIFF VS.. BOUNTY.
Mr.. Mccartney Discusses the Question
Vigorously and Intelligently.


WESTON, Illinois. August i5.-I have
been in hope that some of our democrat
ic papers would ere this try to enlighten
its readers on this Tariff vs.. Bounty
question. Now l shall try as l under
stand it to discuss the question (as
many OF your readers know me person
sonally). got my education in an old
log school house, stood by writing
desk pinned against the wall, sat on
seats made of slabs, with no backs to
brace us up. II you think it worthy of
a place in your paper, please publish
and let it go for what it is worth,
1 have given the matter some atten-
ton and find from the best information
at hand that the tariff is tar.
! see tariff plank in the platform OF
the Iowa democrats says: "The sugar
the Treasury for special classes and in
terests, which are no more entitled to be
aided by the government than the farm
ers Of Iowa in raising hogs and corn"
That is all quite true except as re-
ference in principlejbetween a bounty
paid from the Treasury in aid of some
industry and a protective tariff. There
is in fact no difference in principle what
ever, and it is important not to lose
sight of this truth, but to drive it home
persistently until every taxpayer sees
distinctly that a tariff duty laid for
protection OF an industry is tax laid
on the masses of the people not to get
revenue into the Treasury for public
uses, but to put money into the pockets
of those who happen to engage in the
favored industry.
OF the two modes of protection the
Bounty mode is far better, because il is
honest and straightforward. The peo-
pie know just what they are doing, why
they are doing it, and what it costs them
to do it.
Under the tariff mode of Protection,
the people do not know these things,
and it is only with the greatest difficulty
that they can be made to see them.
Mystified by the sophisms of the pro-
tected classes and their attorneys, they
come to imagine that the protected in
industries are in some way benefited
without any expense to any one unless
it is the foreigner. That by some occult
art of legislation the clouds are tapped
and fructifying showers descend upon the
benefciaries without cost TO any one and
that the result is net gain TO the whole
country
Multitudes do not and will not see
that not the smallest item of wealth is
procured without the application of la
Dor, capital and skill, and that il by leg
islative devices the gains OF certain ia e
vored industries are increased, the in
crease must necessarily come out of the
products of industries that are not so
favored. Under the bounty mode of
protection the people cannot well help
seeing this.
The sugar bounty will be useful to the
country as an educator. II is now esti-
timated by the officers of the internal
revenue bureau that the total amount of
the sugar bounties for the first year will
be between 10000 900 and $4,000, 900.
When this money comes to be paid out
Of the Treasury the people can see it.
They can also see that the Treasury is
getting about 100000, 900 less revenue
than it got when there was duty on
raw sugar. They can also see that they
are getting the sugar cheaper than they
did when it was fairfield at the average
rate of about cts per pound.
Putting these things together they
will be remarkably dull if they do not
see the tariff was tax to the full limit
of 2 cents a pound.
They can hardly fail to see that the
tax was paid by them not only the SUI
gar which was imported but equally on
that which was produced in this eoun-
try. They will see that the sixty mil
lions of revenue lost by placing sugar on
the free list has to be made up by them
out of their earnings when they pay
taxes on other things. And they will
see in paying their taxes on other things
they are paying more for the benefit of
favored industries than they paid for the
home producers of sugar, because far
larger proportion of the other things is
produced in the country. They will see
if the sugar bounty amounts to $12, 000,-
600, that under the old tariff they were
not paying more than that amount for
protection, while they were paying $780,,
900, 900 on imported sugar for the use of
the government, that is, they will see
that they were not paying more than
one-fifth as much to increase the wealth
of favored industry, as they were pay
ing into the Treasury for public uses.
And if they have their wits about them
they will see that in making up the lost
0,000, 900 of revenue they are paying
at least three times that amount for the
protection of favored manufacturers.
Think for one moment citizens of
America Give it one moment of your
honest thought.
Again, when they come TO see Che
people l mean these things as they act
ually exist, nnder the educational in
fuence of the sugar bounty it will be
surprising if they do not rise in their
might and tear up the protective system
of licensed spoilation by the roots, and
cast it out utterly and forever.
1t was this that the Louisiana sugar
planter ex-Gov. Warmoth foresaw when
he appeared before Mr.. McKinley's COM
mittee and protested against the whole
bounty business. He told the commit
tee fatty that the sugar would teach the
people that the tariff was a tax, and
then they would perceive that the trib
ute part of 1.-THE cost of supporting the
industries licensed to take tribute-was
three times as much as the revenue part
or the part, going to the support of the
government.
And then Mr.. Warmoth said: "The
people would rise in their might and
destroy the whole system"
And now, Mr.. Editor in conclusion /
would say while therefore it is proper
to denounce the whole bounty business
as an example Of the cost and the evils
Of the protective system of which it is
part, it should be welcomed by the
friends Of commercial and industrial lib