The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1891-08-07
SOME MORE sopnlsTKY.

Il Ii fact that this country has no
| produced enough sugar TO supply one
third Of the demand, and, while the repub
lican party docs not believe In tgxinp
necessary articles, II advocates the foster
Ing eialf home productions. BY aid from
the government beet sugar could be pro.
duccd, and this bounty IL 10 encourage
the growth and manufacture OF this
necessary OF lie e.-~Hosnfaiasey.
Tho "Rcpubllcan party docs not believe
In taxing necessary articles iodeedl
There IL scarcely mn article Of necessity in
the whole category of human needs that
II has not texej. II taxes iron, coal, lead,
salt. lumber, binding twine, jnte sacks,
wool, wooien goods, Gallery, etc. And
be u burned into the very minds of the
massesas contradisiingnished from the
classes tia, the leading purpose Of this
tax Is not 10 raise money TO run the gov
eminent, but to benefit the few at the
expense OF The many, by giving the few
the monopoly Of The trade In the articles
thus taxed,
But ifthc Nonnfaiaeer and its party dc :
sired 10 encourage the manufacture Of
beet sugar. why did they not do so by the
use OF the same means that they encour-
age the wool-grower. The wooden manu-.
facsure, the lumber king, the coal baron,
the iron monopolIsts and other pets Of the
party, that Is by the use OF the protective
tariff. A heavy duty was placed on tin 10
encourage the manufacture OF tin. Why
not place heavy duty on sugar to en-
courage Its manufactured When a duty
Is placed on sugar the people pay an ln-
creased price, but this tar, for such Il l.,
goes into the Golfers of the government
and thus becomes the property of the
whole people. But when bouut, ispaId
tlia bounty comes out OF the treasury OF
the United States and goes Into the hands
of the few producers and thus 6s millions
OF ipeople arc taxed to pay bounty OF }
cents pound on the sugar they produee.
The MosnfdiHeer thinks there IL no reason
10 Sustain the proposition made by the
DEMOCRAT that "ihere IL just as much
reason for giving bounty to the wheat
grower as TO the sugar producer" Let as
see. They are each American citizens,
entitled 10 the same privileges. They are
entitled TO equal protection. II tte
sugar producer Is 10 have n bounty le-
cause he can no, prof,abiy sell his sugar
In competition with foreign producers,
then why shouit not the farmer have
bounty on SIS wheat raising II he can not
srl II prohtab.y In competition slth
foreign raised wheat' The fact tina,
foreign sugar IL bFough; into the home
rnsfke, and sold In competition viii. our
home product while our wheat must be
sent abroad, cats no figure II the farmer
Who raises whoa; To seli In the Liverpool
market finds |, AZ difficult to make II
profitable As the American sugar producer
does who produces sugar for the home
market, then the farmer has just as much
righ. TO ask Tor bounty as the sugar pro.
deeer. Why no,i IL not the farmer an
equal CT the sugar mani BY what parity
of reasoning can II be sho~n that The
government should throw It's fostering
care around The producer who sells his
product ia this country, and witaholds ],
from him who sells Il In foreign conn
try' This the Messkaiaser can no, deny.
We trust The AssnkataoeT sIll not for
moment believe that the DEMOCRAT
iavots giving bounty 10 whoa, producers.
We arc opposed TO the whole bounty
system as being the most dangerous policy
our government could adopt, besides I, |.
without warrant IN the constitution. II
Is neither more nor less Objectionable than
the protective tariff system by which the
many are burdcned for ,',e benefit of the
few.