Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1894-08-02
THE TAX ON SUGAR.
Why the Republicans Stick So Closely e
the Mckinley Bill.

Why the Republicans Stick So Closely e
the Mckinley Bill.
It is obvious that the alluring shib.
boleth. "a free breakfast table," is the
influencing cause of much of the oppo-
sition to the sugar tax in the pending
tariff bill. There is a fascination in
the idea that the essential elements OF
the poor mans matutinal meal shall
be exempt from all elements that might
add to its cost, and there is a more or
less widely diffused delusion that un-
der the present law sugar is free from
taxation. But, as matter of fact, it
is taxed to an extent without parallel
The two cents pound bounty to the
growers of raw sugar and the FIVE
tenths Of a cent tariff on all the prod
ucts of the sugar trust combine to
create an enormous levy, and, though
it is collected on the clothing and
blankets of the people, and is present
ed bodily to the beneficiaries, does not
in the least degree alter the facts in
the case. 1t is a tax just the same, and
tax that is criminal because it is an
unconstitutional robbery.
The plain truth of the matter is that
because of republican proflgacy and
the ineficiency of the Mckinley bill
as a revenue law. the country is con-
fronted by an impending treasury de-
f1ciency. To avoid such a calamity it
is necessary to discover new sources of
revenue. With that idea in view, the
pending bill provides for Withdrawing
the unconstitutional gratuity to the
sugar growers and the sugar trust and
divert an equal amount of the money
that is taken from the pockets of the
people into the treasury. The bounty
to the sugar growers will amount this
year to about s25,OOO,OOO. The PRO
lection" to the trust is $50, 900, 900,
making total of s4s, ZOO, 900 of taxa
ton on sugar, comparatively little Of
which goes into the treasury. The
pending bill will draw about an equal
amount from the people, but every
cent of it except that which goes for
expenses of collection will go into the
treasury and be available for the ordi.
nary expenses of the government. re.
lieving the people of taxes on other
necessaries to that AMOUNT.
We would be glad if it were possible
to secure this reform in the revenue
system without affording protection
to the sugar trust, but the democratic
majority in the senate is so meager
that the detection of single vote
would put the whole measure in jeop-
ardy. The sugar trust, like all other
trusts, is obnoxious to the democratic
party, and any legislation that would
destroy it would be welcome to the
democratic people. But according to
the best information attainable it is
not possible to accomplish this result.
One or two senators who hold title to
their seats through democratic suf-
frage declare their intentions to bolt
unless the odious concessions are made
to them. The consequence would be
the continuance OF the Mckinley bill,
which is what the sugar trust and the
republican party desires The late
Gov. Moses once said, by way of en-
enlargement to his carpet-bag asso-
ciates in the south: There are q
couple of years good stealing in the
south yet" 1t is an analogous senti.
ment that influences the publcans to
adhere to the Mckinley bill with
such marvellous tenacity.-Kansas Cit,
Times