San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1892-09-07
Pertinent Questions Answered

Pertinent Questions Answered.
You say that our people save S4S,.
OOO, 600 q year through free sugar.
Why not make other goods free and
save many times that amounH
For the hundredth time We reply
to the question. There is no earthly
analogy between the Tariff on sugar
which was q revenue Tarif-and
the Tariff on wool, for instance,
which is q Protective Tariff. The
former sustained no domestic INDUS
try of any moment, gave practically
no employment to American labor
and capital. Under 1t nearly all our
sugar was imported, and when 1t was
abolished there was no collapse oil
domestic industry. The few sugar
producers received In exchange for
the Tariff bounty under which they
prosper even more than before. But
remove the duty on wool, which now
sustains the immensely important
Industry of sheep husbandry, and
YOU carly death and desolAtion
among thousands of now fairly pros.
De rous flock masters. Australian and
Argentine woods would flood our mar.
kets till the American fine wool in
dustry was no more. After that we
should have no guarantee that we
would get our woods any cheaper
than now. We should be obliged to
take our chances on that ecore. Bnt
about the losses we should sustain In
the slaughter of focks tor their tai
low, as occurred before under low
revenue Tariff on wool, there can be
no manner of doubt
Even free sugar would not, perhaps
be receiving the enconiums pro.
nouuced upon 1t on every hand had
the American sugar Industry not
been securely protected against disas'
ter by the bounty. For, In that event,
the cry of distress which would ere
this have reached us from the Louisi.
ana plantations would. perhaps, cause
us tn pause and consider whether 1t
was to impoverish even few OF our
people.
To guard against such q calamity to
the wool interests. II we are To carry
out etrictly the comparison with su-
gar we should need to provide for
bouoty on American wool sufficiently
liberal to take the place of existing
Tariff. But, under the arrangement,
not a cent would be saved to the peo-
ole. for the amount of bounty we
should have to pay would at least
equal and probably exceed the
amount of wool duties now collected.
In the case of sugar, since our home
production was less than l pound in
10 of what we import, abolishing the
duty of 2 cents q pound on the I'D I'M
ported, and paying 2 cents out of that
saving on the imported pound, re.
suited in net gain to the people of
Is cents, or about S4S, 100000 in the
aggregate. So we see that, no mat
ter from what point of view, there Is
no likeness between sugar or revenue
duty, and wool or Protective duty.
We trust that our questioper will
guard against these Free Trade fall
lacies I'm the future.
To what extent have the imports OF
barley fallen off since the passage OF
the Mckinley bill?
In 1889, the year before the Mckin-
ley bill passed, the value of the bar
ley imported into the United States
was S6,25S, 297. In 1891, the first calen-
dar year during which the new Tariff
law has been in operation, the value
of barley imports was 81 ,6Sl .542. This
shows an increase of 81 $40, 755 In the
value of the market for American bar.
ley, for the single year lS9l.-Ameri.
can Economist.