The Globe-republican. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1889-1910, 1891-06-10
FREE SUGAR AND PROTECTION.
The Difference Between Protective Tariff |
and . Revenue Tariff As shown in the |
Case Of Sugar 4 Cheek and Ignorance Of
Free Traders.

~
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 u1taIei protection or free
trade: II it is ps5tectiou- then I am protec-
zionist and am Wiling % work tor more OF the
same sort Fit IS free traie, why are you so
happy over it, Nj Protectionist: Especially
since you profess 10 believe that the fore guers
pay the duty. and its removal IS therefore a
boon 70 him instead o: 10 rs. Mr.. William
Lloyd Garrison Speech az Danve-s. Mass
April 8
The tariff organs continue 20 impress upon
their protectioaist readers beautiful lesson in
political economy II 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 OWE assiduous teachin 2
that the taris is paid By the foreign manu.ac-
urer or producer and rot by the American con-
suner.-Pniladelphia Record April :.
Yesterday the housekeeper had to pay one
dollar for fourteen pounds Of white granula,ed
sugar. To-day one dollar will buy twenty
pounds OF the same quality. This is a
splendid free trad lesson, given 20 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 It is free trade.
otherwise known as tariff for revenue
only. sometimes called Cobdenism.
which requires a tariff placed on these
goods Free trade is England's policy.
vet 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 suppl the domestic de-
nand are paid by the consumer, does
rot 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
LILO cents pound. would sell for Ito
of cent pound as soon as the present
duty of two cents a pound was removed
The duty on wire nails is protective,
that on sugar, revenue duty. That is
the difference. 1t requires a vast
amount Of cheek and lamentable alb
sence of conscience for these free
sratiers to so misrepresent such WELL
known facts Their doing so indicates
the desperation to which the benefcent
results of the new tariff are driving
them.