Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1892-12-22
SUGAR Duty is A-TAX
THE People KNOW THAT AND WILL
NOT AGAIN TOLERATE Ir.I

It is reported that an attempt will be
made in the next congress to again put
duty on raw sugar. The entire con
gressional delegation from, Louisiana,
Florida and Texas, including the sena.
tors, it is said, will demand the repeal OF
the bounty law and the restoration oi
the tariff in reduced form. They are
willing TO accept as low duty as y
cents per pound rather than continue
the bounty of two cents, with the an.
noyance and delay connected with this
system. This would be in entire accord.
ance with the Democratic platform. AS
we produce only 10 or 12 per cent. of all
the sugar we consume, perhaps four
fifths of the increased cost due to a
tariff actually reaches the United States
treasury. But few duties will produce
so much revenue at SO small a cost to
the people. An average duty of less
than 21s cents previous to 1891 was pro-
ducing between $50,O00,0O0 and $780,
100000 year revenue. The total ad-
vance paid by the people probably was
only from $40, 1000, 900 to S75, 900, 900. An
average duty Of 70 per cent. on manu-
factured woolen goods previous to 1891
produced only about $35, 900, 900 revenue,
but probably took from $150,OO0, 900 to
5000, 100000 from the pockets of the
people. 1t is evident then that it would
be far better for the people to put a
heavy duty on sugar and very light
one on woolen goods, and in framing a
tariff for revenue bill no better article
than raw sugar could be found to put on
the dutiable list. And yet, notwith-
standing this fact, raw sugar should not
be taxed again. Nay, it will bring
almost certain ruin upon the party that
taxes it. Why?
First-Because the people have found
out what they have not yet learned in
regard to the duty on wooden goods
that the duty is tax. To replace the
duty would be to give them another OBJ
ject lesson such as no party which cares
a snap for its future will care to give.
Tariffs are an excellent means of rails
ing revenue when the masses do not
realize that they are paying taxes in this
way. But duties arouse almost as much
opposition as direct taxes when the peo-
pie see the taxes in advanced prices. In
the case Of sugar, more clearly than
with any other article, the tax is seen
and felt. Every family buys sugar.
Adulteration cannot hide the advance in
price. If sugar reached consumers only
after being remanufactured into foods
the tax would scarcely be seen at all.
Many good protectionists might then
assert that if there was any tax foreign
ers paid it. But the most fanatical Nc
Kinleyite admits that a duty on sugar is
a tax paid by consumers.
Second-Because a duty on sugar is
not entirely consistent with that clause
in the Democratic platform which de-
clares for free raw materials. Not only
is sugar raw material to many impor-
tant industries, but it is raw material
to some industries upon which the well
fare of farming and other great indus
tries largely depend. The United States,
because of its unrivaled facilities for
producing fruits, vegetables, corn, fish,
meats, etc., should be the home of the
canning industry and should supply the
whole world with many kinds of canned
goods. With cheap sugar and cans it
would have begun to do this long ago.
England had cheap sugar, tin and glass,
and now is the center of the worlds
supply for canned goods. She even ex-
ports large quantities of jams, jellies,
marmalades, etc., to the United States.
She can do this because sugar, which
forms half the weight of jams and jel-
lies, has been costing her Gamers only
about half what it has cost ours. With
big and prosperous canneries in all Sec
tions of our country our farmers would
have certain and reliable markets for sur
plus products that are now wasted. Many
crops that now often yield losses would
then bring almost certain profits, and
farmers would be prosperous In many
sections where they are now on the
Jagged edge Of bankruptcy, if not on
heir way to- the poorhouse.
Third-Because sugar is food and a
necessity to all families To increase
he cost of living is to diminish the
)ower of the producer and to lessen pro- |
luotion. The bad effects of such a |
'olicy are manifold. Duties on tobac-
'os, whiskies, etc., by lsssening the !
consumption of poisons and stimulants
nay increase the power Of producers
md be benefit tc nation. Duties on
uxuries also RAY do little or no harm,
'ut the G.dty on sugar is blow to pro-
IuctiSn.
Fourth--Because about the only ben
fit to private interests of such duty
will be conferred upon the few holders
If Sugar trust certificates. This Sugar
rust defes the law and is the implacable
enemy of labor. It is one of the greedi-
est and meanest of trusts. By means
of the duty Of one-half cent per pound
IN refined sugar it is now robbing the
people of about $20,000,O0O a year. 1t
lolds about one-third of its refineries
die, thus throwing thousands of labor
BIS out of employment. 1t has reduced
wages until none but Italians and Huns
will work in the intensely heated rooms
If its mills. Instead Of giving increased
powers to this hated monopoly we should
clip its wings by removing all duty on
sugar, especially when, as in the present
case, the duty is travesty upon justice
and produces no revenue at all, being
evied by and exclusively for the trust.
These facts are understood too we'll
The people simply will never again in
times of peace tolerate any considerable
luty upon sugar, nor will they tolerate
the party which insists upon levying
this duty. An income tax or some
other direct tax to make upa deficiency
of revenue will not meet with half the