The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-12-14
A TARIFF FOR REVENUE ONLY.

| Under the present Mckinley tariff sugar
| is on the free list. If the next congress
stands by the Chicago Democratic ma
tional platform, which declared explicitly
| for revenue tariff and for such a tariff
| only, sugar will be taxed, for tariff for
! revenue only involves the imposition of
duty on sugar, tea and coffee, which We re-
/ quire, but which We do not produce. A
| tariff on such articles would involve no
| protection, because we do not produce tea
| and coffee at all-only sugar in a very linn
| tied quantity. This is the only way that
! revenue can be raised that does not in
| volve protection, unless we resort to an in
| come tax.
| The free trade pure Democracy favor
this re-imposition of duties upon sugar,
| tea and coffee, but the independent or
| Mugwump Democracy does not favor it,
for the New York Times, one of the ablest
organs of the Mugwump Democracy,
says:
| We notice that two or three OF our contem-
| poraries commend the proposition made by one
| or two Democratic members OF congress that
| she old duties on sugar be again imposed. The
effect OF such legislation would be TO increase
| the price of sugar to consumers generally by at
| least cents pound. 1t deserves no support
whatever. The Fifty-third congress will not
begin its work OF revising the tariff by increas.
| ing the cost OF the necessaries OF life.
The Times opposes also the imposition of
| an income tax, despite the fact that duty
| on sugar or an income tax is indispensable
| if $500, 000. 900 of revenue is to be raised on
| $500, 100000 of dutiable imports. Deduct
| ing raw materials now on the tariff, this is
all that the country imports or all it is
| likely to import in manufactured articles,
and on it 1920. 900. 900 of revenue cannot be
raised if the tariff is reduced. The alter
native is tax on sugar or an income tax.
| The st. Louis Republic, DEM, also OPP
| poses the reimposition of the sugar duty.
The result of the Republican policy
which placed sugar on the free list was to
reduce the cost of sugar to the people, so
that it sells at wholesale now for 4. - cents
a pound. against and 9 cents in 1889, and
7cents in January, 1891, before the sugar
clause of the Mckinley act took effect.
1t has sold as low as 4. Al cents a pound.
Nevertheless, Mills of Texas and Harter
OF Ohio will favor the reimposition of the
sugar duties and the repeal of the sugar
bounty 10 the domestic manufacturer of
cane, beet or maple sugar, a bounty that
cost rs about $1,000, 900 last year, while
the placing of sugar on the free list saved
the people 500, 900, 900 in taxes. The DEM
ocrats declare that this bounty of 5000
600 to sl0,000,0O0 to foster the domestic
sugar industry is unconstitutional, and
yet are willing to pay SEQ 900. 000 to the
same end out of the pockets OF the people
! by means OF revenue tariff.
| The Democrats who desire to discard
the Chicago plank OF the tariff for revenue
| only or evade it. are not likely to prevail
| i'll the FItty-third congress. The Chicago
| convention declared protection unconsti-
| tutional. This declaration was openly re-
| pudiated by David b. Hill and implicitly by
Cleveland, who promised that a certain
amount OF Incidental protection would be
! preserved in framing a tariff for revenue
only. Ii is likely. however, that the Dem
ocratic tariff will be a revenue tariff, a
tariff levied on ARTICLES not produced in
this country in sufficient quantity TO sat-
isfy the demand. Here is forecast of a
tariff levied strictly on revenue lines that
We find in the Albany IN. " Erening
! Journal:
| suyar--S cents spouni on z 5Ss n10n0o
pounds .......................... sos 99o. coo
| Coffee cents pound on oio,9ioeol
- POUNDS. - ...-;:s s2oi1,oo
go ,s,n, oe"'' P'NN" VA '''o'''VVo q 90 non
| snlcss~lo cents pound on "a 400 aAl ''''''NNO
| pounds .......... ................ SOso.O0o