The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-09-17
HON. j. Q. BURROWS AND HIS DE-
TENSE OF THE ROBBER TARIFF.

1
Kalamazoo district, Michigan, was
brought to Canton as the friend OF
Major Mckinley, to open his campaign
in Stark county, we have the right tc
assume that he represents the ablest
argument or that side and that he
speaks as one having authority. AS a
I forensic effort Burrows speech was q
success, He is regarded as the most
facinating stump orator in Michigan,
and his long service in Congress, dating
back to 1873, has made him one of the
foremost men of his party. Let us
briefly refer to the argument and state
ments that Nj. Burrows gave US, and
then refer to few items of the most
vital moment, that Mr.. Burrows did not
discuss.
Mr.. Burrows does not believe in the
Mckinley tariff. lie was IN close Gym
pathy with Secretary Blaine for reduc-
ed duties and more liberal reciprocity
arrangements, during the debate on the
Mckinley bill in the House. While
not so radical as Ben Butterworth, he
opposed as a member of the Ways and
Means committee, some of the more
| odiOus features of the Mckinley law.
When Mckinley was holding private
conferences with the president of the
binding twine trust, in bis private room
at the Ebbitt House, III order to pre-.
vent the removal of the duty on binder
twine, Mr.. Burrows was in favor of the
removal of the duty, andwhen the Sen.
ate knocked out MeKinley's tariff for
monopoly and the trust, on that article,
Mr.. Burrows was rejoiced.
However, let us not estimate Mr..
Burrows on his real convictions on the
tariff, but on his utterances. Mr.. Bur-
rows made scme very remarkable state.
ments for man who aims to be q
statesman and man OF affairs. Some
of these statements are known to be
false, and we cannot account for their
utterance, except on one theory, the
desperation of the Republican case
Mr.. Burrows made the statement that
in case of tariff for revenue, the con.
sumer pays the duty, and therefore the
tariff in this case is a taE on our own
people, who are the consumers of the
imported article, but in tariff for Pro-
lection the consumer does not pay the
duty, but it is paid by the foreigner
who imports the article. Now it is not
worth space TO argue proposition
as absurd as this, because those
who are stupid enough to
accept it, are beyond the reach of any
common sense arguments. But let us
hear Mr.. Burrows a little further be- |
fore we dissect his absurdity, and we
find he hoists himself by his own
petard. Mr.. Burrows said the sugar
duty was taken off because it was
purely duty FOR revenue, and not for
protection, thereby saving the con-
sumers of sugar in the United States |
S54, 100000 per year. Now take these |
two statements of Mr.. Burrows TO- |
gether, and how do they jibe. He says
a revenue tariff is always paid by
the consumer. He says the duty |
on sugar was purely revenue
tariff, and then adds that taking off the |
S54 100000 duties on sugar, (all paid by
the cousumer) we have saved the con
sumers Of the 8. S. $5AOOOOOO. Then
he said we agreed to pay the sugar
growers a bounty to compensate them
for the loss Of protection; showing
clearly that the sugar tariff was recog-
nizsd as protective tariff by the |
authors Of the Mckinley bill. And
yet there were Republicans on the plat |
form Tuesday evening who took III Mr.. !
Burrows argument as being something
sincere, lucid and solid. Any person |
with as much brain fibre as two ordi- !
nary gray geese can see that |
his statistics on sugar completely knock !
out his theory Of the importers paying
the revenue tariff duties. Mr.. Burrows
made a number of statements that are |
glaring falsehOods, and we have too |
much confidence in his intelligence to |
believe that he made these statements |
in ignorance. Mr.. Burrows said there |
was 10 item in the Mckinley bill that |
is not protected against foreign compe. |
tition, that we produce IN this country. |
In order TO show how false this state
ment. .is we will only refer to hides, which |
we produce in enormous quantities, |
which were put on the free list by the |
bill. At recent meeting in |
Ohio Mckinley was asked why he put !
hides on the free.list, and his oLly an
swer was, because found them there"
This is no answer at all. 1t is only a
dodge, thin excuse. We could men
ton many other articles besides hides,
but this is enough to prove the falsity
of Mr.. Burrows statement.
Again Mr.. Burrows said no article
was tariff taxed in the Mckinley bill,
that did not come in competition with
American products. This is another
false statement, How is it with pearl
buttons that are enormously taxed.
How is 1t with tin plate. A public
man who comes here to teach us, ought
at least to be truthful, even if he has
poor cause to apologize for,
Mr.. Burrows talk against free silver
coinage was really case of cruelty to
He probably did not know
that Mckinley had voted in Congress
for free coinage, and that the swindle
that is proposed by the free silver dollar
on laboring men and old soldiers, is a
swindle that Mckinley not only voted
for in Congress, but advocated and en-