Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-04-23

The Journal reminded the Union Advo-
cate few days ago that good Democratic
Doctrine i, to tax the sugar AMI that accor-
ding'y the laboriug man whose physical
well being requires as much sugar il his
food as does the good health Of the mill ID
aire, would pay as much tax as the Latter.
The ADV ocate retorts, $50 will the poor
man pay just as much tax on the clothing
wooden goods is not tax in the sense that
tariff on sugar is, as the Advocate vel
knows. Again it is not necessary for
laboring man in order to ensure his well
being, to buy as many clothes
as the average millionaire generally
does 20 there isn't the slightest sp
proach to a ravallel in what the Adyocat
cites. But to mitigate the Democratic tariff
the Advocate would turn to an incon tax
knowing how inquisitorial, unjust aud par
tial in operation the income tax was as p
war measure and how bitterly it was OPP
posed by Democrats il is a little surprising
that the Advocate can see any possible ad-
vantage to be derived from it now. We
should suppose that the Advocate by look
ing back over its own files ami those oe
other Democratic newspapers published 80
years ago could find that which would make
i. hesitate to esp ,use the cause of national
income tax.
But it seems to us tina. the Advocate has
fallen into the same error that so many of
the opponents of the principle of prot c'ion
d., the error of believing everything told
them by the Free Trade aud PopuIist mis-
sionarics. If we remember correctly the
Advocate fell into the common error of the
Democratic press in wailing loud ard long
respecting TIC workman's Dime. pail along
back in 1892 when the dii ner pail of the
American workman was capacious and well
filed. There was many sympathetic
editor who sobbed aloud at the thought of
the workingman's hard earnings oozing av ay
under condition whereby tin dinner "a Is
should be made in this country instead of
Wales. The worl incman who to this day
is not aware that the Mckinley bill made
the slightest difference in the price he paid
the dealer for his dinner pail is painfully
aware that these same Demo cratic fallacies
as that of the tin pail have frightened CAPT
tai and robbed him of employment this year
and of the savings he made under Republi-
can rule in years gone by.
But the Advocate nimbIy skips from tin
dinner pals to "all necessities" which is
more general and gives wider scope to the
ina gination. That dinner pail bogry is elu-
sive but those of the Advocates faith drag
it out in as many guises as there are
"nece ssities.' There are many of these
same necessities" through which the con-
sumner is told the protective tariff robs him.
But even allowing that the cost of these
same articles is enhanced by protective
tariff to the amount claimed by the free
trade theorist land these estimates We do
not admit to be true) the consumer does
not find any marked difference in his
living expenses. He does, however, per-
ceive difference between the steady en-
ployment and high wages he was
getting in 1891 and '92 under a prott ctive
tariff in full operation and not threatened
with immediate extinction and the likeness
and want he is experiencing under the
Democratic regime. Now let the Advocate
claim that hard times are due to the Repub-
licsns. That's the only alternative and
such a claim serves at least to amuse. 1t
deceived few people at first but didn't
bear investigation. However that fact
needn't deter the Advocate.