Birmingham age-herald., 1894-10-11

IOrL-SO e6S00tlaI bO Quiuau 6Alsbcucol
 Did republican senators and members
 represent your interests, my fellow citizens,
 when they voted against the bill which re.
 duced the tariff more than one-half upon
 wooden goods? Think you your interests
 will be subserved by the re-enactment of
 the Mckinley law and the increased cost to
 every householder of all kinds of wooden
 goods, blankets, underwear, hats, shawls
 and carpets? If so, you have DO lot or
 part with those who for 6 lifetime have
 struggle led against odds for reduced taxation
 upon the necessares of life. No words of
 mine can reach the man who, blinded by
 partisan prejudice, would willfully undo
 what has after so long struggle been ac-
 com plished; the man who would wilfully
 remove $50, 900, 900 of taxation annually
 from the earnings of wealth aud add 1t t i.
 the cost of tue very garments which pre =
 tect from the winters storm. Is 1t posg e.
 ble that you have no interest in the fa~
 that by the new tariff law, under the
 wooden schedule aloue, there will be saved
 yearly to the people of the United States
 more than $163, 900, GOO?
 Another prime article of necessity alike
 in palace and cottage is salt. The tax upon
 salt in bulk under the Mckinley law was
 82 per cent. A democratic congress has
 wholly abolished this tax, and this article
 of human necessity is now upon the free
 list. Dosyou desire this tax restored?
 O1e of the wisest and most beneficent
 prov isions of the new tariff law Is that
 placing hunter on the free list. It has for
 years been standing reproe to the Amer ican congress that upon every foot of Ium- Der used in the erection of farm house, barn, or cottage, tariff tax was levied. The people demanded the repeal of this,
 one of the greatest iniquiLies of the McKin- ley law. A democratic congress has promptly responded to this demand, and your houses, cottages and barns can now be built with untaxed lumber. You need not be told how greatly this will lessen their cost. It is estimated that the section s..~ A1-. I....- l. alone will annually save s50, GOO, ,000 to the people of the United States. l submit the question, is there within the sound of my voice one man who desires lumbe stricken from the free list and the Mckinley tariff tax restored? If so, his vote should be cast for the republican congressman who so earnestly by voice aud vote opposed the bill which gives to the people of the United States, as l trust forever, untaxed lumber. l will not weary you with further dis
 cussion of the detaiis ol this bill. cannot | forbear, however, calling the attention of | the farmers of Illinois to the fact that ag- 1 ricultural implements ts are now upon the free list After bitter struggle the tariff taxes l have been removed and $40 GOO, ,00O saved | annually to the American farmers by this l provision of the new tariff law alone. Is 1t | your wish that the tariff taxes of the | Mckinley law be again placed upon agri- cultural implements and binding twine? Is
 this what the farmers of Illinois desire? If l so, you have but to elect republican con- | gress and your wishes will be gratifed. As have said, the duty of the congress to provide sufficient revenues to meet the expenses of the government was impera tive. Under the Mckinley law there was | deficit instead of a surplus. The secre- tlry of the treasury, in his letter to the acting chairman of the finance commitsee 1 of the senate, stated that the total ex- | penditures during the current fiscal year would reach $S63, ,0o0, 900. The revenue l arising from the increased tax on whisky | and the tax on incomes during the first 1 year of their operation, when added to l that derived from customs duties, would
 still have left a deficit. Therefore the sec l retary, in the letter to which 1 have re- | ferred, recommended the retention in the new bill of the tax on raw sugar. This | would bring to the treasury for the current l fiscal year the sum of $43, 900, ,00U. As matter of governmental necessity it was re- | tained.
 and of the benefits it will derive under the | new law. I am free to say that could my | vote have controlled it would have received l none of the benefits against which com plaint has been made. favored the bill as | it passed the democratic house, placing sugar of all grades upon tho free list But | objectionable as some features of the sugar schedule are, it must not be forgotten that they are great improvement upon the | Mckinley law. How? The sugar trust sprang into existence under the Mckinley law-was in fact a necessary outgrowth of that law. The Mckinley law admitted raw sugars free of duty. This was in the inter- est of the refiners-in other words, of the sugar trust. Was this in the interest of the people-of the consumer? Not at all. It was solely in the interest of the refiner, for the reason that the free sugar of which you have heard so much was wholly unfit for domestic use. It was the raw material that passed first into the hands of the re- finers-of the trusts. It was not the sugar used upon your tables. Before 1t reached 1 your table the refiner had added to its cost | to the consumer exactly the tariff that an- other clause of the Mckinley law had pro- vided. How? Upon the sugar used at your homes in cooking aud upon the table, the tariff tax was placed at 50 cents upon every 100 pounds. This provision, coupled with that allowing free raw sugar to the refner, gave the trust opportunities for gain hitherto without parallel iu legislation. It's profits have been enormous. Under it's concessions, granted by the Mckinley law, 1t has become the gigantic monopoly of the age. You cannot be too often reminded that all of the trusts and monopolies that are now the bane of this land are the off, spring of republican high tariff enact- ments. If it had been the intention under the Mckinley law to give free sugar to the people, why tax of F cent per pound on that ready for domestic useY Why not, as in the bill which has just passed the demo- cratic house, admit all sugars free?
 Il nave balO Cuo MCAlnlcy iaW iCVlSu U tdA of E cent pound upon refined sugar, and in addition to that 1t levied tax of 1-10 of
 1 cent pound upon sugars coming from
 countries that paid a.sugar bounty. Thus you will see that the net protection given
 the trust by the Mckinley law was virtually
 6-10 of cent pound, and that, too, after
 giving free raw sugar for consumption in
 It's refineries.
 According to the best estimates than can be obtained the total raw sugars imported free of duty into tue United States while the Mckinley law was in force exceeded
 13 ,O00, 900 pounds. Thus you will see