Freeland tribune. (Freeland, Pa.) 1888-1921, 1893-01-09
SUGAR DUTYIS A TAX
THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT AND WILL
NOT AGAIN TOLERATE 1T.

Tariffs Are an Excellent Means of Rails
ing Revenues Until the Masses Realize
That They Are Taxes, and Then the
Opposition Begins.
1t is reported that an attempt will be
made in the next congress to again put
duty on raw sugar. The entire con-
gressional delegation from Louisiana,
Florida and Texas, including the sena-
tors, it is said, will demand the repeal of
the bounty law and the restoration OF
the tariff in reduced form. They are
willing to accept as low a duty as l12
cents per pound rather than continue
the bounty of two cents, with the an
noyance and delay connected with this
system. This would be in entire accord
ance with the Democratic platform. AS
we produce only 10 or II per cent. of all
the sugar we consume, perhaps four
fifths of the increased cost due to
tariff actually reaches the United States
treasury. But few duties will produce
so much revenue at so small cost to
the people. An average duty of less
than 21s cents previous to 1891 was pro-
ducing between $j0OOO,O 900 and $780,
900 600 year revenue The total ad-
vance paid by the people probably was
only from $40 ,000, 900 to $75, 100000. An
average duty of 70 per cent. on manu-
factured wooden goods previous to 1891
produced only about $35, 900, 900 revenue,
but probably took from $150,000, 900 to
5000, 900 from the pockets of the
people. 1t is evident then that it would
be far better for the people to put
heavy duty on sugar and very light
one on wooden goods, and in framing
tariff for revenue bill no better article
than raw sugar could be found to put on
the dutiable list. And yet, notwith-
standing this fact, raw sugar should not
be taxed again. Nay, it will bring
almost certain ruin upon the party that
taxes it. Why?
First-Because the people have found
out what they have not yet learned in
regard to the duty on woolen goods
that the duty is tax. To replace the
duty would be to give them another OBJ
ject lesson such as no party which cares
a snap for its future will care to give.
Tariffs are an excellent means of rails
ing revenue when the masses do not
realize that they are paying taxes in this
| way. But duties arouse almost as much
opposition as direct taxes when the peo-
pie see the taxes in advanced prices. In
the case of sugar, more clearly than
with any other article, the tax is seen
and felt. Every family buys sugar
Adulteration cannot hide the advance in
price. If sugar reached consumers only
after being remanufactured into foods
the tax would scarcely be seen at all.
Many good protectionists might then
assert that if there was any tax foreign
ers paid it. But the most fanatical Nc
Kinleyite admits that duty on sugar is
tax paid by consumers.
Second-Because duty on sugar is
not entirely consistent with that clause
in the Democratic platform which de-
| clares for free raw materials. Not only
is sugar a raw material to many impor-
tant industries, but it is raw material
to some industries upon which the well
fare of farming and other great indus
tries largely depend. The United States,
because of its unrivaled facilities for
producing fruits, vegetables, corn, fish,
meats, ETC., should be the home of the
canning industry and should supply the
whole world with many kinds of canned
goods. With cheap sugar and cans it
would have begun to do this long ago
England had cheap sugar, tin and glass,
and now is the center of the worlds
supply for canned goods. She even ex-
ports large quantities of jams, jellies
narmalades, etc, to the United States
She can do this because sugar, which
forms half the weight of jams and jel-
lies, has been costing her Gamers only
about half what it has cost ours. With
big and prosperous canneries in all Sec
tions of our country our farmers would
have certain and reliable markets for sur
plus products that are now wasted. Many
crops that now often yield losses would
then bring almost certain profits, and
farmers would be prosperous in many
sections where they are now on the
ragged edge of bankruptcy, if not on
their way to the poorhouse,
Third-Because sugar is food and a
necessity to all families. To increase
the cost of living is to diminish the
power of the producer and to lessen pro.
duction. The bad effects of such q
policy are manifold Duties on tobac.
cos, whiskies, etc, by lessening the
consumption of poisons and stimulants
may increase the power of producers
and be benefit to a nation. Duties on
luxuries also may do little or no harm
but the duty on sugar is a blow to pro
duction.
Fourth-Because about the only ben
eft to private interests of such dut,
will be conferred upon the few holder
of Sugar trust certificates This Suga
trust deties the law and is the implacabl
enemy of labor. 1t is one of the greedi
est and meanest of trusts. By mean
of the duty of one-half cent per pount
on refined sugar it is now robbing tn
people of about $20,000,000 year. l
holds about one-third of its retinerie
idle, thus throwing thousands of labor
ers out of employment. 1t has reduced