Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1892-03-22
SPIRIT OF JEFFERSON
Logic and f acts.
From the St. Lonis Rennhlic !

1hAIlNh SuS.I SObSuiuSo OtsfO pOuuuS
per head last year as against 54.5f
in the year $780, and adds: .That's
a per cent. of thirteen pounds of su-
gar for every man, woman and child
in the land as the fruits of the Nc.
Kinley measure
Now this is the very thing that the
tariff reformer is noting. and he has
fallen into train of thinking some
thing like this: If taking the tariff
off sugar has so lessened its price that
each of us can now buy thirteen
pounds more for the same sum OF
Nancy, will not taking the tariff of
wool enable US to buy more clothing.
blankets and other necessary wolen
goods, and taking the tariff off lum-
ber enable US to build or rent better
houses for the same money? And
will not removing or reducing the tax
tin plate, or cutlery, or glassware and
crockery, enable US to enjoy more OF
these comforts and necessaries with
out additional cost.
Sugar is all very well so far as it
goes, but we can not live on sugar
alone, even when moistened with
something else. We need clothing
and shelter and furniture and table
ware, and numerous other things to
make us comfortable and decent, all
of which are now so heavily taxed by
the tariff that our supply of them is
less than we need or should otherwise
have.
Moreover, the tariff reformer is
noting another thing. If taking the
tariff off an article cheapeus its cnst,
and cheapening its cost stimulates
and greatly increases the consump-
ton of it, more labor must be en-
played in its production. The in
creased consumption of sugar in 1891
over the previous year, due to the
fall in the price, was 100000 tons,
all of which was refined in this coun-
try, and thus called for a large addi-
tional number of American workmeu
at the rate of wages previously pre-
vailing. Hence we have more sugar
and more employment for labor by
removing duty, whereas If the Nc
Kinley bill had added cent pound
to the sugar tariff there would have
been less sugar and less employment
for labor.
And lastly the tariff reformer is
wondering in the light of these facts
what becomes of the argument con-
stantlY made by this same organ and
protectionists generally that the tar
i iff is not tax paid by the consum-
ers, but license exacted from the
foreigner for permitting him to sell
his goods (sugar) in our market.
If the foreigner paid it, how does
its removal thus inure Immediately
to the benefit of our consumers.
1t will not do now to say that the
sugar tariff was an exception 10 the
rule, for it was in connection with
this very tariff that Senator Ed
munds, certainly not the least acute
and able of the protectionists speak
ers in the Senate, was so carried away
by what he conceived to be the con-
clusiveness of his argument, that the
tariff was tax on the foreign pro-
ducer and not on the home consumer,
that he challenged the other side to
produce ''a single instance in ma
tional or human experience" where
the increase of a duty by country
has increased the price of sugar to
the consumer, Or where the diminu-
tion of duty by country has di-
minished its price to the consumer
or where putting the articles entirely
upon the free list has worked any es-
sential or appreciahle, or even OBJ
servable benefit to the people of the
United States or any other people
that consumed the commodity so
brought in"
Senator Edmunds correctly and
ably stated the logicof protection.
The removal of the sugar tariff has
given US the inexorabIe logic of facts.
WILLIAM l.. Wilson.