The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-08-27

TOtal. S19 81 10.
i5,053.G7s dozen eggs In ported in 9J.
1t will be seen that in 1890 we imported
S79, ,8l2, ,l02 worth of farm products. mucl
OF which it is believed will be produced
here under the new tariff law.
Rec SUGAR AND DHE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
The Democratic party is now CLAIMING
that free trade in sugar is in the direci
line of their economic theory and princi
pie. They would have the country be
lieve that they have always advocates
free sugar, and that this 10 one of the
items of the bill which they thoroughly
approve. Such ismost remote from the
truth, as the history and record of tbs
party will show.
First and foremost every tariff bill
which the Democratic perty have formu.
lated and passed has placed duty upon
sugar, raw and refined. Every tariff bill
which they have proposed to paso placed
duty upon sugar, Sugar was made dut.
liable under the Walker tariff of 1916. II
was dutiable under the first bill which the
Democratic party offered after the war,
known as the "'Wood Tariff Bill" 1t was
made datiable under tho two Morrison
bills and the Mills bill.
The late Secretary of the Treasury, MIR.
Manning, in his report to Congress-,
recommended in distinct terms, the re-
tention of the duty on sugar because II
was revenue duty, and was q subject
from which large revenue could be de-
rived
ALL DEMOCRATIC coNeREssMEN 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 two and one-half cents
a pound. In the senate a united Demo-
cratic vote opposed the free.sugar clause,
and justified their opp0sition because il
was revenue duty and in strict accord
with the economic principle advocated by
the Democratic party. Sodkat we have
free sugar under protective tariff which
has been impossible under free trade or a
revenue tariff, and we have 1t free under
protective tariff, because under the
principle OF protection we do not tax those
foreign products which experience and a
thorough trial have demonstrated we CAN
not produce in quantities sufficient for
our own consumptioD. By this one sec.
ton of the law S55 ,000, 600 OF taxes are re.
moved from the shoulders of the people.
Instead Of collecting this sum as 1t would
be under revenue tariff, IL is left IN the
pockets of the people.
THE SUGAR BOUNTY.
But II is sail that free sugar is accom-
panied with bounty provision which is
even more burdensome than the tax itself.
This Is not true. We did provide for bouu-
ty to The sugar producers of the U. S. The
party was unwilling to do any
thing which would destroy this industry
and make valueless the millions of dol
lars invested therein. And so they pro.
vided--havinR removed the tariff--that
the sugar producers of this country should
receive bounty equal to the tariff. This
will encourage and stimulate the produc-
tion OF sugar, IL anything can, and it will
cost the Government this year less than
$11 900 900, an annual saving Of $44, ,000, 900
for the duties amounted to $56, ,000,000.
RECIPROCITY.
There is contained in the new law a re-
ciprocity provision by which the adj
ministration has already made valuable
treaties with Brazil, San Domingo and
Spain. 1T 10 provision which in no way
encroaches upon the protective principle,
nor can in any way destroy or undermine
our defensive or protective tariffs.
Reciprocity is based upon our free list
and practically upon noncompeting pro-
ducts. 1t provides that the United States
having made sugar, molasses, tea, coffee
and hides free, If the country producing
these article and sending Ihem TO the
United States shall impose duties or other
exactlons upon agricultural or other pro-
ducts of the United States reciprocity
unequal and unreasonable, the President
the proviso relating to the free intro
duction of such articles, sugar, molasses.
tea, coffee, hides, &c., against such coun-
tries imposing these duties and exactions,
and the original duties shall be imposed.
TIN PLATE AND TIN ORE.
There is much criticism about the duty
on tin plate, and fully as much misrepre-
sentation as there is criticism. IL Is gem
orally supposed that under the new law
tin orc or block tin is now dutable.
Under section 209 of the law il will be
seen that the duty on block tin goes into
effect on the Let day of July, 1898, That
Is, the manufacturers of tin plate have
free tin ore or block tin for two years,
Then there is this further provision.
That unles II shall be made TO appear TO
the satisfaction OF the President of the
United States, who shall make known the
fact by proclamation that the product OF
the mines OF the United States shall have
exceeded 1900 tons in one year prior to
July /, 1896, then all pig tin shall after
July l, 1895, be admitted free of duty.
Tbe duty on tin plates went into effect
on July 1st, OF this year. There ia also
provision in the law that on and after
October lst, 1897, unless il shall be made
to appear to the satisfaction of the Presi-
dent, who shall thereupon make procla-
nation of the fact that the aggregate
quantity OF such tin plates produced In
Ihe United States during either of the
years next preceding June 3Oth, 1897, Is
equal TO one-third the amount of such Tin
plates imported and entered for con-
during any fiscal year after the
passage of this act and prior TO October
lst, 1897, then they shall come free.
Ii Is said we cannot make tin plate,
How absurd, for we are already making
II and 1t will not be long until we shall