Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1894-09-08
Why Not Make 1t Apply Universally ?


lection" and replying to the JOURNAL,
the Cumberland Nesos says:
Every producer of raw or refined sugar was
satisfied with the sugar schedule of the Nc
Kinley act because 1t projected him. The
consumer was satisfied because under its
operations he obtained better sugar at less
cost than he was ever before able to purchase
in the history Of this country. Now as
sugar is commodity which enters into the
domestic economy of every family; and as
the Mckinley act made it so cheap that the
consumption during the first year the law
was in operation increased from fifty-four to
sixty-seven pounds per capito, it must be
evident that it is "within the range of human
power to construct a tariff measure that will
benefit every interest involved, the JOURNAL,
Mr.. Wilson and their little theories to the con-
trary Notwithstanding Ne~s.
The producer" was of course, "satis-
fed" because he was not only ''pro-
tected," but specifically protected"
"The consumer was satisfied" be-
cause, looking only at sugar, he was buy
ing it cheaper than ever before. 1t
never occurred to "the consumer" that
he was paying full price for his sugar
on something else. Perhaps it was on
his tobacco or woolens.
For it is certain the government had
to get his portion of the seventeen
millions out of him under some dis
guise.
Otherwise, it cannot pay bounties.
Hence, the very best that can be
said of the bounty system is-that
what it puts into one breeches pocket it
must first take out of the other.
But suppose the Ne,os' contention
that bounty-giving has really cheap
ened sugar, why can't we stife the
broad and broadening cry for cheap
coal by having government give us
bounty? Coal is more of necessity
in domestic economy" than sugar
why not take, say seventeen millions,
out of the United States treasury and
hand it-not to our miners-but to our
mine owners to stimulate production
and thus cheaper coal to the con-
sumers9
En- passant-the JOURNAL is careful
to designate our mine-owners as the
beneticiaries of the bounty, because it
is the planters of Louisiana, four
hundred i'll all, who get it-not the
poor underlings who do the work under
the hot sun of climate almost tropical
in its intensity
And then, in general way, why
not endow all industries with boun
ties and thus cheaper all productions
to the masses?
Where was the charity in the Nc
Kinley Act that gave us cheap sugar
for seventeen millions of dollars, and
then charged us 81 .95 for every dollars
worth of coarse wooden goods
1t is true the high tariff on wool was
equivalent to a bounty, but instead of
improving the quality of our clothes,
as the Neos says it did of sugar, it de-
graded it and imposed the shame of
coarse clothes upon everybody who
was not able to buy fine ones.
But again if bounty giving to sugar
be so benefcent, why not, we repeat,
make it apply universally to "com-
modIties which enter into the domestic
economy Of every family9"
But if it be not SO benefcent other
wise than as applied to sugar, will the
Nesos tell US why not
For if its demonstration on the one
side be so finally conclusive, it surely
hnoeos why the same process would not
increase coal consumption, for in
stance, from to q tons per capita.
Lastly, if feasibly and properly of
general application, let the News tell
us plainly who finally pays-not only
the bounty, but the cost of collection
and disbursement of the bounty?
The JOURNAL holds, as before seen,
that the consumer pays the bounty;
the Ne,os seems to think the producer
cannot get it out of the consumer be-
cause the latter gets sugar cheaper
than he did when there was no bounty.
Hence. there must be somebody else
in the deal-somebody, too, who is
paying, but, so far as we can see, is
not consuming sugar nor receiving a
quM pro quo; somebody whose bencv-
olence to the planters is assuredly dis
interested.
Who is he?
"Answer at the JOURNALS expense"
AChallenge.
Under the Mckinley Act the tax on
sugar was 60 cents per 100 pounds,
and the Trust got all of it
Under the German Act it is 81 80, of
which the Trust still gets 60 cents and
the government 95 cents.
These are big facts, not 'little
theories"
Now what we want to see is-the
Cumberland News, sticking to the big
facts and avoiding the ''little theories"
explain how. if protection and bounty
giving cheaper sugar-how the much
greater protection is to carry ont
its prophecy of much higher prices for