The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-08-24


ing the tin plate business?
You want to know, after conceding that the
statement In my letter to Mr. Lewis regarding
the saving TO the American people by the repeal
OF the tariff AZ to sugar, 10 substantially correct,
'why not repeal the bounty and add To our saw
ings?' reply that the sugar interest OF Louis
lana was deemed of sufficient importance TO be
entitled TO a share of that protection which was
being accorded to other industries, and was
strong enough TO get it in the shape of the
bounty which you want repealed. There was
also another good and sufficient inducemeut for
this bounty provision. France and Germany,
by wise systems of bounties. have devei oped the
sugar industry 30 that France at least is. am
informed, large exporter OF sugar. We have
all the conditions here on the Pacific coast, IS
well a. in other sections of the United States,
for the successful development of the sugar in
dustry; and, following the lines Of policy which
the wisest statesmen OF every period Of our ma
tional existence have proclaimed aud enforced,
the trainers OF our present tariff made, In this
bounty on homegrown sugar. an iuducement
for men OF capital to 20 into the culture
OF sugar beets and the manufacture of
sugar therefrom. AZ well a. from sorghum and
sugar cane. And this wise measure 10 produc-
Ing its legitimate results, for in Minnesota,
Iowa, Kansas and other states the cultivation of
sorghum and the manufacture of sugar there
from 10 being attempted on an extensive scale.
In California and one or two other states / have
information, which take 10 be authentic, that
and refneries of sugar are at the present time in
operation. The cane-sugsr industry of Louisi-
ana has received an impetus that promises well
for its future. That the government has been
called upon for nearly $s0o0,0o0 by way OF
bountes during the past fiscal year shows that
the sugar industry 10 coming along. These, Mr..
Hardin, are my reasons for not wishing the abo-
lition OF the bounty on sugar grown in the
United States. Don't hold any one else re-
sponsible for them. please
You ask, "Why should not the same sum Be
given to producers of wheat and corn?" Am ]
to presume from this that you are ignorant OF
the fact that there 10 . duty on ali the products
OF the farm, corn and wheat included? Az the
bounty on sugar 10 In lieu of abolished duty the
inference 10 fair ona
II the producers OF wheat and corn stood in
the same position in regard to the other indus
tries ofsths nation that sugar growers do, !
would deal with them in q like manner. But
your Democratic orators are now complaining
OF the tariff on corn, wheat oats, cattle, horses,
hogs and other farm products, by which the
farmers of our northern frontier for more than
5000 miles, and of our southwestern frontier
for about 800 miles. are protected against the
British-American provinces in the one case and
the Mexican states in the other; and the Cana
dams and British Columbisns hate the name of
Mckinley as much as their ancestors did that
OF Gaorge Washington. If you will 60 over
amongst them and inquire what prices they get
for their farm products and domestic animals,
as compared with the prices obtained in the
protected home markets of the United States,
you will soon learn who, in this instance at
least, pays the tariff tax. word on this sub
jeet: take il that the truth of this mattel 10
that upon all goods imported, the like of
which are not manufactured In this
country in quantities sufficient. by competition
amongst our own manufacturers, to establish
the market price, the purchaser pays the duty.
And that the reverse Of this proposition is true,
also, is exemplifed in the fact that there are
many articles Of American manufacture which
are sold in this country for about what the duty
would be on them il they were imported. In
this case you cannot say that the tariff il . TAX
IS to them: or in case like goods are imported
that the consumer pays the duty. Their price
10 regulated by competition amongst the manu-
facturers in the protected home market
word on the wool question and closa Mr..
Hardin, you remind me of Q fellow once knew
who set up for aliterary critic on the strength
OF having discovered an error In spelling in the
columns of q daily newspaper. I don't know
whether the writer or tho printer was RESPONSE.
BILE for the misspelling. As you had the two
sums to b added before you, you certainly
could not be greatly misled by the error in put
ting them together, 80 your little parthian Ar.
row OF sarcasm 10 as harmless - . paper pellet
and as guiitless Of point ~ one of Colonel Lewis
speeches. To each of your questions have re-
piled. which 10 more than Ayour friend James
Hamilton Lewis has done to mine. / am re-
spectfully, WILLIAM w. II. MACCURDY.