Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1894-09-01
Danger of Cheap Sugar.

Sympathising with the bounty-fed
sugar-growers. the Cumberland Nescs
INDUCES the following sophistry:
Does the JOURNAL actually wish to see
sugar cheaper than it was year ago? VIII
it not agree that when the poor consumer"
unconscious though he certainly was OF the
fact, was paying the Louisiana planter
S17,OOO,OOO year in the shape of bounty, he
was getting better and cheaper sugar than he
ever got in all the worlds experience? The
JOURNAL is old enough to remember paying
from seven to ten cents a pound for brown
sugar under the Walker low tariff; and if it
is not paying that price for graduated sugar
under the new tariff before year rolls by
we will be much surprised. The Mckinley
Act fixed the sugar schedule so as to produce
revenue, and protect both consumer and
planter The new Act protects Only the
trust.
The JOURNAL does not believe that
sugar can be too cheap.
At the same time it does not be-
lieve that bounty-giving is the proper
way to cheaper anything. The con-
sumner may be unconscious of paying
his 26 cents a year to the planter as a
gift, but the latter easily becomes a
Mogul when be finds on looking at his
change that the gifts amount to
$42,50O! A year or two of this sort
of picnic and he feels as "big as ole
Havemyer" going to the third house
and imperiously debating legislation.
Now let the voter think of the 30
cents per capita given last year to the
Sugar Trust, amounting to twenty
millions of dollars, and he will see
exactly what 1t was that prevented
free sugar this year.
Hence, the real danger is-that for
a few cents worth of cheapness we
may be exchanging our power to legis-
late in our own interests-not only
concerning sugar, but in more inn
pOrtant concerns.
The JOURNAL is not at all an
admirer of Gov. Altgeld, but when on
the 18th of August he telegraphed the
following message to Congressman
Springer he put what ought to be the
Ne,os' position in nut she'll:
Secure free sugar if possible. The whole
American people are interested in this. Free
bituminous coal could only benefit New Eng
land and the seaport towns and help few
men who own the foreign mines. The
entire country west of New York cares no.
thing about it, for our soft coal is now sold at
starvation prices. AS free coal will only
benefit a small section, you should not stand
in the way of a measure for the relief of the
whole country, and it is vital that some bill
be passed at once.
1.-The new Act" says the Neos,
protects only the trust" This is a
mistake. 1t protects the treasury to
the extent of seventeen millions, and
whatever protects the treasury under
an economical administration eventu-
ally protects the people.
The Neaos also says:
The Mckinley Act fixed the sugar schedule
so as to produce revenue, and protect both
consumer and planter.
Fellow citizens, it is not within the
range of human power to construct
such measure. Whatever "produces
revenue to the same extent discour-
ages domestic development, and what
ever ''protects" the consumer cannot
possibly do the same thing for the
"planter."
But if the Mckinley Act did all the
Neecs credits it with, why did nearly
every republican in the House of
Representatives vote for free sugar.
And why did Henry O. Havemeyer,
in reply to a direct question, "what
schedule are you fighting for ~ say to
the New York Herald and st. Louis
Globe Democrat the single word, "Mc-
Klnley's ?"