Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-09-03

The high tariff organs, particularly
those which arc always on the alert to
support their arguments in favor Of ex-
cessive and burdensome taxes by homely
illustrations and pertinent applications
of the protective system, are now
greedily circulating the following pretty
little tariff fairy story from the Oska-
loosa Herald:
One Of our farmer friends, whose only
fault Is that he is Democrat--and he is
not to be blamed for that, for his father
before him was dyed in the wool, and he
never reads the newspapers---came to town
one day this week to buy some sugar. His
| good wife was putting up fruit. and she
needed about fifteen pounds Of sweetness.
| The dialogue in the grocery ran about as
| follows:
Farmer-"What are you doing, young
man ~
clerk-"Waiting on you. Weighing out
your sugar"
Farmer-"How much are you giving
me?'
Clerk-"A dollars worth"
Farner-"Yes, know; but how many
pounds?'
Clerk-"Twenty-four,"
Farmer-"rwenty-four Why it used to
be only fourteen"
Clerk-"Yes. but Mckinley did it.n
Farmer-'Well, run her back and give
me only fourteen pounds. If took home
twenty-four pounds of sugar for 81 the old
woman. would make me vote the Republic
can ticket and I'll be hanged if I'll do
that"
Now, to the highly protected ears of
the tariff advocates this little story is
delightfully."- titillating, and points the
protective moral with unerring ac-
curacy, to say nothing of the beautiful
manner in which it adorns the tale OF
unnecessary taxation which the whole
country is now perusing with such great
interest. But to minds unaffected by
blind tariff prejudice the story is only
beautiful as far as It goes, and stops Just
short OF showing exactly how "McKin-
ley did it y when he induced Congress
to adopt his revision of the tax laws in
tho interest of the " fat-fryers," the
trusts and the protected monopolies of
the country. For instance, after the
clerks remark, in response to the farm
er's surprise at the low price of sugar,
that Mckinley did it," the dialogue
should run on in this way:
Farmer-"But thought the Mckinley
bill raised the tariff on everything 2"
Clerk-"Well, so it did on pretty much
everything hut SUGAR.
Farmer-"And what did it do with
sugar?'
Clerk (gleefully)-"Why, it put sugar on
the free list. There's no tariff on sugar
now, don't you know?'
Farmer-"On, see. They took the tax
on q sugar and now sugar is cheaper
Clerk "a glimmering comprehension of
the drift of the discussion beginning To
dawn upon him "Well-er-ah-y.es 50
Farmer-"Thats good. Now, il thew
would only take the tax off Of wool. tin.
farming implements and the many other
things so necessary to us farmers, they'd
be cheaper, too. wouldn't they 2"
Clerk (shortly)-"Want anything else
This is feature-and a perfectly
natural and reasonable one, too-of the
tariff discussion that the protection
organs will hardly care to discuss. But
the people, those who save tax on sugar
but pay i on SO many other things, are
not likely to lose sight of it. Not for.
getting, as they 60 along, to remember
that the tariff on sugar went into the
public treasury, while the taxes on most
Of the other necessaries and conveniences
OF daily life go into the pockets Of the
protected manufacturers-not their
workinen for they do not earn higher
wages than bricklayers and carpenters
the protected manufacturers who fry out
the fat TO keep the 6. o. p. in running
order.