The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1891-06-17
FREE SUGAR AND PROTECTION.

The Difference Between Protective Tariff
and q Revenue Tariff as Shown in the
Case of Sugar Cheek and Ignorance Of
Free Traders.
Now that the Mckinley prices are at
) hand, and cheap sugar is causing con-
sternation in the reform" camp, the
enemies of protection are driven to very
absurd expedients in trying to neutral
ize the impression which free sugar for
the people is creating in favor of the
Mckinley tariff. We call the attention
of our readers to the following utter
ances on this subject from representa-
tive free trade sources:
Is admitting sugar untaxed protection or free
trader II it is protection, then I am protec.
| zionist and am willing to work for more OF the
same sort. lit is free trade, why are you SO
happy over 1t, Mr.. Protectionistg Especially
since you profess to believe that the foreigners
pay the duty, and its removal is therefore
boon to him instead Of to US. - Mr. William
Lloyd Garrison, Speech at Danvers, Mass,
April s.
The tariff organs continue to impress upon
their protectonist readers beautiful lesson in
political economy in the repeal of the sugar du.
ties. This remission of taxation, they declare,
will be felt by every family in the land, al
| together forgetting, in their newborn zeal for
free trade in sugar, their own assduous teaching
that the tariff is paid by the foreign manufact
urer or producer and not by the American con.
sumer.-Philadelphia Record, April g
Yesterday the housekeeper had to pay one
dollar for fourteen pounds Of white granulated
sugar. To-day one dollar will buy twenty
pounds Of the same quality. . This is
splendid free trade lesson, given to the people
| by the enemies Of free trade A tariff is tax
New York Standard, April /.
To make sugar free is protection, Just
as it was protection to make tea and
coffee free, which was done by protec-
tionists years ago. 1t is free trade,
| otherwise known as tariff for revenue
only, sometimes called Cobdenism,
which requires tariff placed on these
goods. Free trade is England's policy.
yet tea and coffee both bear a heavy
tariff, which is paid by the English
people. Protectionists everywhere and
always have maintained that the sugar
tariff was tax, and never, as these
free trade authorities represent, that it
was paid by the foreigner There is no
room for controversy on this point.
| Any one, by consulting almost any
speech or recorded utterance of any
representative protectionist, can easily
satisfy himself that we state the simple
truth. That protective duties on articles
which can be produced here in sufficient
quantities to supply the domestic de-
mand are paid by the consumer, does
not therefore follow. Because sugar
dropped in price the amount of the duty
as soon as it was abolished, it does not
follow that wire nails, now selling at
2 lilo cents pound, would sell for lilo
of cent a pound as soon as the present
duty of two cents pound was removed.
The duty on wire nails is protective,
that on sugar. a revenue duty. That is
the difference. 1t requires a vast
amount of cheek and lamentable alb
sence of conscience for these free
traders to so misrepresent such we'll
known facts. Their doing so indicates
the desperation to which the beneficent
results Of the new tariff are driving
them