West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1892-01-07
The SUGAR TAaIYP.

duced, so that the dollar which,
under the old law bought IA pounds.
now buys III pounds, and vt the
same time the SIS, 900, 900 of duty
formerly pail by the people is not
collected, and out of other taxes the
government pays TO American su-
gar producers two cents per pound
for their output, or s12, 900. 900 per
annum, making q net saving to the
public OF s43, 900, 900. which the
people feel in the way Of getting for
67B what formerly cost 81.
The above item has been going
the rounds of the Republican press
for several weeks, and they take
great pride in exhibiting it 70 the
public and citing it as one Of the
benefits of the Mckinley Bill.
Heretofore the same parties con
tended that the consumer did not
pay the tariff, but the foreign manu-
facturer. Now they have taken a
change OF base and tell the truth in
speaking about the tariff as illus
trated by the sugar. 1t also tells
another important truth when it
says the Government pays to
American sugar producers two cents
per pound for their output, or S12,-
600, 900 per anuum." Now, gentle
reader, can you imagine why they
pay the American producers S12,-
000,0 il the tariff is for the bene.
fit of American labor? Is it not
plain to you that the tariff is wholly
aud solely for the benefit of the
American producer and manufac
turer and that the American con-
sumner pays the tariff ? The ARGUS
is willing to believe that q large
majority Of the Republican voters
believe that they do not have TO pay
the tariff, but the foreigner, who
ships his products to this country,
they believe pays it for the privi-
lege OF selling in our markets. The
Republican leaders and bosses know
better, but they are in the employ
OF the mon who reap the benefits
and must write and talk that way.
Ii the Republican theory was the
correct one, relative to the tariff.
what was the use of taking the tariff
off sugar if the foreign producer
had to pay the tariff? What differ
ence would it be to the American
consumer? None whatever. Ac-
cording to Republican logic, the
tariff makes things cheaper, and if
YOU inquire how, they will cite you
to the fact that sixty years ago
Farmer Smiths sorrel critter
wouldn't skeer at the buljinc But
the ARGUS would ask every Repub-
lican who honestly believes that he
does not have to help to pay the
tariff to study the above item con-
corning the tariff on sugar, because
1T is fair illustration Of the work.
ing OF the tariff and who it benefits.
just cut it out and paste it in your
hat, and the next time Rcpubli
can stump speaker or editor tells
you that tariff is not tax, and
that the foreigner has to pay the
tariff, how it is about sugar. Ask
him who paid the tariff on sugar
before it was taken off. Remember
the above item was written by "
Republican editor who WAS anxious
to prove to the people the great
benefits to be derived from the
Mckinley Bill. and the rest of the
Republican press have endorsed it
and passed 1t around. The item
has escaped the journal so far, but
we hope to see it grace its columns
before long with an explanation
that the tariff is not tax
Facts of tins kind, it might very
reasonably be expected, should have
a tendency to silence the exploita-
ton Of the Republican press that
the foreign manufacturer pays the
tariff, but this would be expecting
too much from the "home market"
advocate.
The Good Templar entertain
ment on New Years night was good
1 81 ouso..d 49, 1 -