The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-01-10
FARMERS VOTING TO RUIN THEIR
OWN INTERE ST.

| Jerry Simpson, says our article was IN
tended to injure" him and to make out
that he sis working against the sugar
industry"
The article was not written for the
purpose of injuring any one, but to show
that by voting for Jerry Simpson and
the Democrats, he was doing great in
! jury 10 himself and to every farmer in
| Kansas, and was killing the sugar in
| dustry. He says:
This wise writer tells you the Demo-
Gratis are going to take the bounty all off
| from sorghum sugar, which Is not SO. The
| industry is in its infancy and not full
| success. The bounty on cane sugar may
be taken off As for the tariff on sugar,
was it not taken off, and did it not come
down in price, Now let the tariff be re-
moved from the old and successful manu-
features"
Is not jerry Simpson, to use his own
words, IAN absolute free trader, in
every sense of che world" Is he not op-
posed to a protective tariff and subsidies
and bounties of every kind? Is not the
Farmers Alliance also opposed to sub
sides and to protecting any industry?
Here are a few quotations from the
platform and resolutions Of the Omaha
/ convention:
I'VE oppose any subsidy or national aid
10 any private corporation for any pur-
pose whatever"
eve condemn the fallacy of protecting
American labor under any system which
opens our ports to the pauper aud emf
grants of the world"
1--WE demand that all state and national
revenues snail be limited to the necessary
expenses of the government. economically
and honestly administered
That the Democratic candidates are
equally opposed to protective tariff and
subsidies, the following from their plat
form will show:
I'VE denounce Republican protection as
fraud aud robbery of the American peO-
pie for the benefit of the few.
1--WE depounce the Mckinley tariff law
inaugurated by the F'ifty-frst congress, as
the eliminating atroCIsy of class legisla-
tion. ami we promise its repeal rs one of
the benefcient results that VIII follow the
action of the people in intrusting power TO
the Democratic party"
Does Nh. Benedict suppose that men
elected to Office by parties announcing
such principles are going to cont niue the
bounty on sugar for the benefit of
Medicine Lodge farmers? Did not the
Farmers Alliance attempt, at the last
session of the Kansas state legislature, to
repeal the state bounty of cents a
pounn? and did they not remove about
half of that bounty? Does Mr.. Benedict
suppose that the Farmers Alliance III
other parts of Kansas that do not
raise sorghum, and have no sugar fac
tories. are going to be taxed for the ben
eft OF the few farmers about Medicine
Lodge who can and do raise sorghum
for the sugar factories?
Mr. Benedict tells your readers that
the bounty on cane sugar may be taken
off. but leaves one TO infer that on sor-
ghum sugar it will be retained. That
would be legIslatin3 with vengeance
it costs about three times as much to
raise an acre of sugar cane as it does an
acre Of sorghum, and the sugar cane III
dustry could no more be carried on in
this country without protective tar if
or bounty than can the sorghum in
dustrv. If he thinks the Democrats are
going TO carry our policy especially for
his benefit he will find himself badly
mistaken.
It is very true that removing the
tariff on sugar reduced the cost"
for the reason that we do not
produce the one-twentieth part
of the sugar our people consume, aud it
will take some time and big outlay of
money to establish the industry on
scale sufficient to make al our own
sugar; and for that reason the advocates
of the Mckinley, bill thought best to take
the duties off sugar and put a'bounty on
the home product until the industry is
well established If Mr.. Benedict's party
Will retain this bounty they will do so in
opposition to their platform. Two diff
ferent bills have already been presented
TO repeal the bounty, and we think it
will be done wheE the next congress
meets.
Can the sugar industry be carried on
successfully at Medicine Lodge without |
either a high tariff on sugar, or bOun- /
ty: II 1t can, Mr.. Benedict and the men !
on his ranch were justified III voting for !
Jerry Simpson: if 1t cannot, then they |
have voted to kill their own business.
Mr. Benedict informs us that a few !
years a % "a young Englishman came /
over and brought trunkful of clothes. !
The pants he bought for 50 IN London. (
cost IS or 81 in Medicine Lodge" He /,
thinks if the tariff We're taken off they I
could buy such pants in Medicine Lodge /
for So. This Englishman probably |
bought his clothes in London, put them /
IN his trunk and brought them as bag (
gage to Medicine Lodge without costing |
him cent for freight or commission; /
but if we had free trade, the freight /
from London to Medicine Lodge. to- /
gether with the profits of the wholesaler |
and the retailer, would probably, with /
the raise on prices in London, have J
raised the price of those pants TO about |
the prices for which such articias can I
now lie bought in Medicine Lodge. /
Ready made clothing can be bought IN (
Wichita now about IS cheap as the same +
quality of clothing ia London or Liver .
pool.
Nearly all manufactured products are .
now selling in all parts of this country .
cheaper than such products were sold .
previous to 1862, when the high tariff .
went into operation. If the tariff W re
it would only be q short time .
before the prices Of manufactured prod .
ucts would he higher than they are now,
Mr.. Benedict informs Us that 1.-The only F.
relief farmers get is through their .
votes Well, it Is a strange way TO re- /
lieve farmers. TO vote TO put into office 1
men to repeal bill under thereciproclty
clause OF which, the government re- /
moved the embargo on the farmers
pork. Secretary Ru-k, in his last report.
to show the benefits the farmers are de-
irving from the NckinIeY bill. under he |