Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1891-04-23
Sugar and the Tariff.

|
advertisements of our county merchants in
which they quote the prices OF sugar since
the tariff was taken of that commodity?
Sugar in the last few weeks has cheapened at
lea.t one third, and compared with one year
ago the price has been reduced nearly one
half. Instead of buying from nine to twelve
pounds of gTanulated sugar for one dollar
you can now buy from seventeen to twenty
But if the removal of the tariff from sugar
results in reducing the price from one-half
TO third, why would not the price OF cloth
ing, dress goods, farming implements and
nearly everything else BE- equally reduced if
the tariff should be removed from them? This
is a que stion in favor of absolute free trade
that our protection friends will have some
trouble in explaining. We would like to
hear from the ultra protection REFLECTOR
in regard to the matter-LThe News.
1t is one of the principal missions of
the REFLECTOR to enlighten our mis-
guided free trade friends upon eco,
nomic questions. We have always
believed that it was through want of
information rather than from any
innate wickedness that our Cedar street
contemporary has succeeded in getting
on the wrong side of the great issues
before the people in almost every
instance during its short career. And
nothing will afford US greater pleasure
than to give our friend such intorma-
ton upon the tariff as will enable it to
avoid future embarrassment.
In discussing the tariff there are
some fundamental principles which
fairminded men of all parties admit with
out argument. Among these are:
Firstly, that a duty on an article
which cannot be produced in this
country, as coffee, tea, ETC., is tax
which increases the cost of the article
imported to the extent of the duty;
Secondly, that a duty on an article
produced here to a slight extent, as
compared with our consumption, as
sugar and rice, is also tax which in
creases the cost of the article nearly
to the extent of the duty, as the slight
production here has little effect on the
price;
Thirdly, that duty on an article
which is or can be produced in this
country to the extent of our wants, is
not necessarily a tax and does not
necessarily increase the cost of such an
article to the consumer.
In discussing the effect of the tariff
upon the cost of any article we should
not lose sight of these fundamental
principles.
a fraction ever one-tenth of the
amount OF sugar consumed is produced
in this country. This small proportion
of the entire consumption has little
effect on the price, and hence the con-
sumers have had to pay the duty upon
sugar. The removal of that duty by
the wise provisions of the Mckinley
bill necessarily reduced the cost to the
extent of the duty. Our people here
tofore have paid yearly tax of over
| SOS, 100000 on this one article alone.
The ordinary family has paid from
four to five dollars in duties upon the
amount of sugar consumed in a year.
During the past ten years we have paid
over 1856, 100000 in duties on sugar.
In removing the duty from sugar the
Mckinley bill is in furtherance of the
principles adopted and executed by the
republican party for the past quarter of
a century. 1t has been the republican
policy to place all articles which cannot
be produced in this country, as tea,
coffee, etc., upon the free list because
the consumer must pay the amount of
the duty. And it has likewise been
the republican policy to collect the rev.
enue necessary to support the govern
ment by imposing a protective tariff
upon such articles as can and ought to
be produced by our own people with
their own labor. The policy of the
democratic free trader has been the
opposite. He would impose high
tariff on all the necessaries of life which
the people must have but cannot pro-
duce in this country, as tea, coffee.
sugar, ETC., and admit free of duty all
those articles which our own labor and
capital ought to produce at home. In
carrying out this anti-American idea
it will be remembered that the Mills
tariff bill imposed a duty of IS per
cent upon sugar and 100 per cent on
rice and every democrat in the last con-
gress voted against the placing of sugar
on the free list in the Mckinley bill.
1t will therefore be seen that if we are
getting twenty instead of twelve
pounds of sugar for dollar, it is in
spite of the democratic party and its
vehement protests.
But our contemporary with apparent
glee asks: "Why would not the price
of clothing, dress goods, farming i'm.
plements and nearly everything else be
equally reduced if the tariff should be
removed from them?'
Ever since the British free trade
organizations have been able to dictate
the tariff policy of the democratic
party, this same illogical question
has been suggested, To any one at all