Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1891-09-24
FREE SUGARI
What 1t Means to the People of the State
of Ohio.

The total quantity of sugar imported
into the United States in the last fiscal
year was 3,175, ,6S0,921 pounds, so that
our consumption was 90 pounds per
capita, without including the sugar pro-
duct of Louisiana. The retail price of
sugar year ago was to 1-2 cents per
pound; it is now to cents per pound.
This means an absolute saving of 1-2
to cents per pound ON each pound of
sugar consumed, which will make a
total saving to the people of this country
of at least $111, ,146. .832. 90 per annum, or
about 81 for each man, woman and
child.
Now this saving amounts to more than
cent per pound over and above the aver
age duty imposed on sugar under the tariff
law repealed last year, and it means that
this cent or more per pound comes out
of the profits the sugar refiners formerly
made. The Mckinley tariff bill has.
therefore, not only saved the enormous
sum ofS111, ,14S, ,S32. % per year to our peO-
pie on the one item of sugar alone, but
it has dealt the gigantic Sugar Trust a
terrific blow; and it is now well known
that the sugar refiners, in their selfish
greed, used every argument and artifce
to secure the retention of the duty, and,
failing in that, to have retained por-
ton of it.
1t will be remembered that the pro-
duction of sugar in our own country has
not materially increased in many years,
and that the sugar duties were therefore
not protective, but for revenue only, as
were the old duties on sugar, tea and
coffee, now free also. All honor to our
Representatives in Congress who voted
for the law that made sugar free,
and above all to the man who bore the
brunt of the fight as our leader and gave
his name to the new tariff bill, the Hon.
William Mckinley, Jr!
The saving to the people of Ohio,
whose population is now 3,672, ,316, upon
the sugar they buy and consume will
amount to fully $7,350,000 per annum.
Does Ohio want the revenue duty on
sugar restored?
The following extract from the speech
of Hon. William Mckinley, Jr., at Niles,
o., on August %, 1891, tells how and by
whom sugar was made free:
Free Sugar and the Democratic Party.
The Democratic party is now claim
ing that free trade in sugar is in the
direct line of their economic theory and
principle. They would have the coun-
try believe that they have always advo-
Gated free sugar, and that this is one of
the items of the bill which they thor
oughly approve. Such is most remote
from the truth, as the history and record
of the party will show.
First and foremost every tariff bill
which the Democratic party have form
ulated and passed has placed a duty
upon sugar, raw and refined. Every
tariff bill which they have proposed 10
pass placed duty upon sugar. Sugar
was made dutiable under the Walker
tariff of 1916. 1t was dutiable under the
first bill which the Democratic party
offered after the war, known as the
"Wood tariff bill" 1t was made duti-
able under the two Morrison bills and
the Mills bill
The late Secretary of the Treasury,
Mr.. Manning, in his report to Congress,
recommended in distinct terms the re-
tention on the duty on sugar, because it
was revenue duty, and was subject
from which large revenue could be
derived. 4
All Democratic Congressman Against 1t.
Every Democrat in the House voted
against the clause of the new law max
ing sugar free, and voted for the reten-
ton of the duty of 2 1-2 cents a pound.
In the Senate a united Democratic vote
opposed the free sugar clause, and justi-
fled their opposition because it was a
revenue duty and in strict accord with
the economic principle advocated by the
Democratic party. So that we have
free sugar under protective tariff,
which has been impossible under free
trade or revenue tariff, and we have 1t
free under a protective tariff because
under the principle of protection we do
not tax those foreign products which ex-
perience and a thorough trial have de-
monstrated we cannot produce in quanti-
ties sufficient for our own consumption.
BY this one section of the law $50 ZOO, 900
of taxes are removed from the shoulders of
the people. Instead of collecting this
sum, as it would be under a revenue
tariff, it is left in the pockets of the
people.
The Sugar Bounty.
But it is said that free sugar is ac-
companied with a bounty provision
which is even more burdensome than
the tax itself. This is not true. We did
provide for a bounty to the sugar pro-
ducers of the United States. The Re-
publican party was unwilling to do any
thing which would destroy this industry,
and make valueless the millions of dol
lars invested therein. And they so pro-
vided-having removed the tariff-that
the sugar producers of this country
should receive bounty equal to the
tariff. This will encourage and stimu-
can is1e 'n1 aDd It will cost OF tSe u
this year less than $11 ,0O0, 900, an annual
saving of $44 100000, for the duties
amounted to $55.000.Q00.