The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1891-09-24
APOLOGIES TO JULIUS CESAR AND
HIS BURROWS

| WE owe JULIUS Otbodi DuIlOWo duu
the Republicans who read the NEWS
DEMOCRAT an apology. Yesterday,
after our local report of Mr.. Burrows
meeting had gone into the hands of the
printers, we thought It due Mr.. Bur
rows,as a leading orator and statesman
of his party, that some editorial men
ton be made of his Canton speech on
protection. The editorial was written
late, and the last half was only finished
during the noon hour, when the editor
is usually partakiDg of his frugal mid
day meal. Owing to the large circula-
\ ton of the NEws-DEMoCRAT, we are
| compelled to go TO press with our edi
| torial page early, as our first edition is
| sent on the 1.24 D. m. Pennsylvania
| train, east. Ii was therefore not dis
covered. until too late, that full page
of editorial had been left out, which LETT
our editorial comments on Mr.. Burrows
very ornate and fascinating Grafton In
q confused and unsatisfactory condi-
| ton. 1t is not far from our editorial
sanctum to the composing room, but
| our messenger lad, sometimes designat-
ed as the printers devil, dropped a page
OF matter, or failed to put
IL on the copy hook, hence these tears.
We have observed of late that this
JuNBlllb lttD
the villeinous habit of cigarette smuk-
ing, which has made him nervous, gid-
dy, sallow and uncertain, reminding us
forcibly of Joseph B. Foraker, during
the early days of the melancholy No
vember Of 1889. We wrote that the state.
ment of Mr.. Burrows, that the sugar
tariff tax was tariff, for revenue, was
not correct. That It was not the theory
of the father and champion of Protec-
ton, the late Wm. ID. Kelley Of Penn,
nor was it the theory of VIM. McKin-
ley, Jr., the ostensible father of the Nc.
Kinley;bill. We called attention to the
fact that Mckinley recently said in this
campaign that the sugar bounty was
paid the sugar growers to compensate
them for the loss Of Protection, given
them in the old tariff law that the Nc
Kinley bill repealed hence it followed
that Mr.. Burrows statement that the
sugar tariff was repealed because it was
tariff for revenue and not for Protec-
tion was as ridiculous as it was false.
Now, that we are thinking on this
topic, let us think some more. The more
we think of Burrows speech the less we
think OF it. 1t was such an illogical
affair that we wonder how the able
bodied leaders of the g. o. p. of
Canton could have cOndescended
to applaud it. We wonder why they
did not stop and think and reason in
this way: If the sugar tariff was tax
paid by the consumer, because 1t was q
tariff for revenue, why did the Repub-
lican party (Which levied this taxi keep
robbing the people of S54 100000 every |
year for over q quarter Of a century. |
Let us see: According to Burrows (the |
highest authority in sight), it has cost |
the American people in 20 years, the |
enormous sum of 81 $780, 100000 for the |
sugar tariff tax alone, all paid for the |
benefit of the rich sugar planters and |
the still richer sugar trust. If Mr.. Bur |
rows is correct in his logic and figures, |
he should be making the most abject |
apologies for this twenty-five years |
series of S54 100000 robberies of the |
American people instead of boasting of |
abating the robberies. MIR. Burrows |
has been in Congress for 18 years of |
that quarter of a century, during |
which time this revenue (O sugar tariff |
(as he claims) has been all paid, un-
necessarily, by the consumers of the |
country to the enormous aggregate Of
$9lS, 100000. Remember now we are
only applying Mr.. Burrows own figures (
and logic to the sugar tariff.
When the Mills bill was pending in
the House, which took off S30,000,000 of |
the sugar tariff, Mr.. Burrows, and w. d.
Kelley and William Mckinley, Jr., all
claimed the sugar tariff was tariff for
Protection.
We speak from the record, as we
have Kelley's speech in Congress on
that matter, and VIM. McKinley's
speech, delivered many times over to
his constituents of this district, in 1888.
We remember too lin 1881 an old
Protectionist, sitting in the American
Congress as member from the State |
of Louisiana made heart breaking |
appeal to the House aud the country,
not to reduce the tariff on sugar be-
cause If they did it would encourage
the wicked sugar of Cuba and Brazil,
the product of the unpaid toll of the
slave. Both Burrows and
stood by this emotional man
then and shed crocodile tears over his
case. Now Burrows comes here with
front and masquerades
as humanitarian, because the serf
grown sugar of Cuba and Brazil is go
ing to reduce the poor colored Repub-
licaDs of Louisiana to the same level,
while the rich sugar planter gets his
bounty in spot cash in the enormous
sum of $12,0OO,0O0 per year, gathered
from the sweating toll of the laborers
and farmers of the North and West.
When men of brains like Geo. +. Bald
win, w. X. Miller, Senator Snyder, and
others, can sit on public platform and
applaud such hideous doctrine as tn,
what can we expect of the ordinary
,lod hoppers?