The Democrat. (Scotland Neck, Halifax Co., N.C.) 1884-1896, 1894-03-01
TARIFF O.E SUGAR.
By w. II. KITCHIN.


steps taken by the Republican party
broke their line Of defense and exposed
its weakness. Quinine when put on
the free list fell from 81 to 30 cents pei
ounce. This opened the eyes Of the
people to the iniquity Of the protec-
tive system and taught them how they
had been robbed by the Republican
party for the benefit of less than half
dozen quinine manufacturers.
Now, whether removing the tariff
from quinine reduced the price Or not
the people think it did ; and it Is inn
possible to convince them that it did
not
The Democratic party is now In pow
er. Suppose 1t should put tariff on
quinine of 81 90 per ounce and qulnlne
should 90 to $3.50 per ounce, as it
would. Would it be possible to con-
vince the American people that the 81
tariff had nothing to do with the price
of ouinine? You could as soon satisfy
them that the Rocky mountains are
solid mass of gold.
The Republican party removed the
tariff on sugar and placed it on the
free list Sugar at once tumbled from
about cents wholesale to about a
cents, and from about or 10 cents re-
tail to about or 6 cents
This was another object lesson taught
the people, one they Will never forget ;
and now 100000 of people are using
sugar at cost of Il to 81 cents per
pound.
Remember the Republican party re-
moved the tariff on sugar, 2 or cents
per pound, and the consumers paid
about 500 ,OOO,O less for their sugar.
Now, suppose the Democratic party,
which for the last ten years, has de-
nOunced this tariff on sugar as robbery.
| should place the tax back on sugar and
| it should go up in price, which it
would do at least the amount of the
tax. What VIII be the result? Who
! lowered the price OF sugar to 5 cents a
pound? The Republican party. Who
raised the price of sugar from 5 to 7 Or
cents? The Democratic party.
Is there logic, oratory, patriorism
and craftsmanship enough in the Dem
ocratic party to successfully answer. re-
| siSt and overcome this statement of
facts before the American people?
Does not every intelligent man know
that all opposition to the Democratic
party will make this argument ring
with resounding thunder from every
hilltop and valley and from ocean to
ocean and from lakes to gulf? Be not
deceived. The party has already blum
dered in the silver question and the
patronage question almost unto dissoll-
ton and to place sugar back on the
tariff list under any pretext whatever,
may be the straw to break the camel's
back. It is a fea-ful experiment for
the Democratic party to make at this
time. There is more than $40, 0OO,-
Goo 600 wealth in this country from
which to raise the needed funds to de-
fray the expenses Of this government,
without blotting from the statute book.
one of the few virtues and patriotic acts
of the Republican party. and replacing
the tariff on sugar thereby Increasing
the cost to the CONSUMERS about So
100000. Wealth, not corruption ought
| to pay the expenses OF the government.
Property and not poverty ought to pay
the taxes. Is there any justice for the
man with less than $1,000 in this
worlds goods paying as much toward
government expenses as a Vanderbilt
with his 100000, 900? Why not each
pay in proportion to what he has, and
not in proportion to the amount Of su-
gar he uses?
The Democratic party is in power
| for the first time since 1860. and it
ought to use that power for the upiift-
ing and upbuilding of the people, for
| the equaliZing of the burdens of the
government and making all men pay
their proportional part according to
wealth for the protection of their lives
their liberty and their property The
man who has 81 900 to protect ought