The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1892-03-11

A protection contemporary calls upon |
the DRmocRAr aand other free trade pa
pers' (note the llumor In tlsis) TO make
note Of the fact that tho Mckinley law
gives US free sugar, and that The people
consumed 67.46 per head last year agalnss
s4 SO Ia the year 1890. This extremely
kind and accommodating contemporary
further adds, that this Ii present Of thlr-
teen pounds Of sugar TO every man, wo-
man and child In this happy land Of ours
and all as the result OF the McKinlcy law.
Now, this is the very thing that the DEM-
ocRAr editor has been noting for several
months with the lIvcllest satisfaction, and
We have taken some palms to impress up
on the minds Of our airee trade" readers
the impressiveness OF this fact With ex-
sreme satisfaetIon we note the feet that
these seli-same free trade readers have
tslen Into a train OF reasoning like thls;
II taking the tariff of sugar has so
lessensd It's price that each OF US can now
buy thirteen pounds more for the same sum
OF money, will not taking the tariff
OF wool enable US TO buy more clothing /,
blankets and other necessary wooden
goods, and taking the tahIt of lumber
enable MS 10 build or rent better houses for
the same money! And will not removing,
or reducing, the tailfi on lln-plate. or cut.
lery, or glass ware and erockery, enable Ne
10 enjoy more Of these comforts aud ncc-
essaries without additional cos,s
Sugar Is all very well as far as Il goes,
but we cannot I've on sugar a'one, even
when mols,ened With something else. We
need clothing aod shelter and furniture and
tableware aud numerous other things 70
make us comfortable aud decent. all ol
which are now so heavily ,axeJ by the
tariff that our supply Of them is less than
We need or should otherwise have.
Moreover, The free trade rrtofmer Is not,
Ing another thing. II taking the tariff a
an a,,icle cheapens lis cost, and cheapen-
log It's cost stimulates and greatly increases
the consumption OF 1t, more labor must bs
employed in It's production. The increased
consumption OF sugar In 1901 over the
previous year, due to the fall IN It's price
was 363, 900 tons, all of which was red ne'
In this country. and thus called for large
additional number OF American workmei
at the rate OF wages previously prevailing
Hence we have more sugar and more em
ployment for labor by removing dut,
whereas u the Mckinley bill had added
cent pound to the sugar tariff there woul
shave been lss. sugar and less elnp'oymen
for labor.
And lastly the free trade relormsr
wonderingin the light OF tneir facts what
Gomez OF tn, argument constantly made b
the same organ and pio,eetionls's general
that the tariff Is no, tax paid by this cor
sumerS, but Ilcen exaeted from III
foreigner Tor permitting him TO sell hI
goods (sugarl 10 our mafke,sl
, II the foreigner paid Il. how does Ia n
moval thus inure Immediately TO the ben
eft of our cons umers3
~ NAtt H1t ~ Wv ~ 81 hH@t AHN ebNe
tariff was an exception TO the role, for
was In connection with this very tariff hi
Senator Edmunds, certainly not ths lea
acute and able of the proteetiOnIst speai
ers In the senate, was so carried away !
what he conceived 10 be the conclusive
0 ness Of his argument, that The tariff was
, tax on the foreign producer and not on u
{ home consumer, that he challenged III
other side 20 produce "a single instance
6 national or human experiences" where Il
increase OF duty BY country has Il
creased the price of the article 10 the coF
gamer, or where the dimInution OF dui
by a country has diminished It's price
the consumer, or where putting The ariIc
entirely upon the free list has worked az
essential or apprecIable,or even obseryab
9 benefit to ,he people o. the United Stat
or any other people .hs, consumed Il
commodity so brought it,.'
Senator Edmunds correctly and alb
stated the logic OF protection.
The removal of the sugar tariff h
iven us the Inexorble logic Of fActs.