Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1892-10-19
THAT TOBACCO DUTY.
THE TWO DOLLARS Is PARTLY PAID
BY THE HOME GROWER.

An Ubiquitous Tax.
The Importation and general use Of
Sumatra leaf as wrappers has, during
the past ten years. built mp the cigar in
dustry in America, made market for
native tobaccos. given steady employ
ment at good wages to thousands OF
cigar workers, and satisfied the aesthetic
taste of the millions of smokers.
This tobacco used to cost our cigar
manufacturers about $50 before the
market began to feel the effects OF the
Mckinley bill early in lS9O-when the
price climbed to $3.50, to 81, on up to
So and above-so high that a quantity
of 1889 Sumatra leaf recently sold for
81 per pound. The supply here of Su-
matra and leaf tobaccos is largely held
by speculators who get artificial prices
the duty as usual fostering combines.
The United States Tobacco Journal of
Sept. 10 announces the completion of a
leaf tobacco trust in Cincinnati, which
will be incorporated in New Jersey, and
the same journal of Sept. II reprints
from the New York Tribune a list OF
fiftv-six millionaires who have made
their fortunes in the tobacco industry,
many by specializing in Sumatra.
Not only did the use of Sumatra wrap
pers build up the industry here, but
when the duty was light it encouraged
small manufacturers who could always
be certain of obtaining a supply of good
wrapping tobacco at fair price. Be
fore the introduction of Sumatra the
larger manufacturers would buy up the
best domestic wrapping tobacco early
in the season, and the small manufac-
turers. with but little capital to do bust
ness, were at n great disadvantage. With
a high duty the tendency is to again put
the manufacture of cigars into the hands
of large manufacturers and monopolists.
Thus in 1890, when the Mckinley bill
took effect, nearly all the large manu-
facturers had an eighteen months or
two years supply of Sumatra on hand,
while small manufacturers had only
few months supply, and soon had to use
wrappers at $3.50 or S2.75 and compete
with wrappers that cost 81 less per
pound.
This duty at once increased the whole
sale prices of cigars from 81 to 50 on
five cent goods-perhaps seven-eighths
of all. Then the trade everywhere be-
came demoralized and manufacturers
were compelled to use cheaper "illers,
to make smaller cigars and in other
ways to deteriorate their goods. Often
they squared accounts by reducing
wages. The effect upon the 100000
or 10000, 900 consumers has been exas-
perating. That they still demand Su-
matra wrapped cigars is seen from the
fact that there has been no great dim
mutton in the imports of Sunatra to-
bacco. The effect then has been bad
upon the millions of cigar smokers; upon
the tens of thousands of cigar workers,
and upon thousands of small manufac-
turers, and is a doubtful boon to hun
dreds of large manufacturers.
Now it so happens that Connecticut
tobacco growers have been prosperous
since 1890, and have been getting good
prices for their tobacco. The New York
Tribune and other Republican papers
have been accrediting this prosperity to
Mckinley so vigorously that they have
even made some of the Democrats in
Connecticut believe their nonsense. The
United States Tobacco Journal of Sept
10, in a two column editorial, shows that
by The Tribune's own admissions Con-
necticut tobacco has been 50 improved
by the use of new fertilizers that 1t Is
Sin appearance as good as Sumatra and
better in quality" Of course this Is not
true, or cigar manufacturers would not
pay So for Sumatra when they could get
better for from twenty-five to fifty cents,
but it is true that the better grade of to-
bacco grown in Connecticut is response
BILE for the increased prices and prosper
ity there. The following from this same
journal forever disposes of The Tribune's
absurdities:
"What benefit can the domestic pro-
ducer derive from the fact that we are
importing nearly as great quantity of
Sumatra under the two dollar tariff rate
as we did under the thirty-fye centrate!
That the Connecticut producer received
a few cents more for his crop last year!
That does not prove that the domestic
producers as a class received more.
Connecticut produces the smallest guam
tity of cigar leaf. By far the largest
quantity of our useful cigar leaf is pro
duced in Pennsylvania, New York, Wis
consin and Ohio. The domestic pro-
ducer in Pennsylvania, who raised a
crop of $4,000 cases, against New Eng
lands SO, 900 cases, received less for his
last years crop than he probably ever
did. So did the Wisconsin producer for
his 10000 cases. And the New York
producer got much less for his last
years than for his 1889 crop, when over
81 per cent. of the Sumatra was admit
ted at the thirty-ive cent rate of duty.
The more the Connecticut farmer got
last year was therefore not due 70 Nc.
Kinleyism, but to the poor results of the
cigar leaf growing states; he simply got
the more at the expense OF his brother
producers in the other states, and not at
the expense of the Sumatra or the Su-
matra importer" !"
The United States Tobacco Journal
then shows that the increased duty did
not catch the cigar leaf growers vote:
"Congressn n LaFollettc, of Wisconsin,
the responsi 5le author of the two dollar
outrage cor ained in the tobacco sched-
ule of the bcKinley bill was ignomin
iously defeated in his district, which is
almost an exclusively tobacco growing
district, and a Democrat was elected in
his place The Hon. W. L. Simonds,
the representative of the First congress
sional district of Connecticut, the prin-
cinal cinar leaf ornEing district OF New