Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1894-10-13

finer, for the reason that the ..free
sugar" Of which you have heard so
much. was wholly unfit for domestic
use. 1t was the raw material that
passed first into the hands OF the re-
iiRers-of the trusts 1t was not
the sugar used upon your tables.
Before it reached your table, the re-
finer had added to its cost to the
consumer exactly the tariff that
another clause of the Mckinley law
had provided How? Upon the SUI
gar used at your homes. in cooking
and upon the table, the tariff tax was
placed at so cents upon every 100
pounds. This provision, coupled
with that of allowing free raw sugar
to the refiner, gave the trust oppor-
tunities for gain hitherto without
parallel in legislation. It's profits
have been enormous. Under it's
concessions. granted by the Mckin-
ley law, it 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 Of
spring Of republican high tariff en-
actments. II it had been the inten.
ton under the Mckinley law to give
free sugar to the people, why a tax
Of one-half per cent per pound on
that ready for domestic use? Why
not, as ia the bill which has just
passed the democratic house, admit
all sugars free? l have said the
Mckinley law levied a tax of one-half
cent pound upon refined sugar,
and in addition to that, it levied a
tax CT one-tenth OF one cent a pound
upon sugars coming from countries
that paid a sugar bounty. Thus.
you will see that the net protection
given the trusts by the Mckinley
law, was virtually six-tenths Of a
cent pound. and that, too, after
giving free raw sugar, for consump-
ton in its relinerics. According to
the best estimates that can be OBJ
tanned, the total of raw sugars i'm
ported free OF duty into the United
States while the Mckinley law was in
force exceeded thirt sen billion
pounds. Thus you will see that the
Mckinley law. with its duty of six
tenths of a cent per pound on refined
sugar protected tn. sugar trusts
more than SIS. 100000 upon the
vast importations .of raw sugar
have mentioned. These profits to
the trust came from the pockets Of
the consumer; and yet you are told
that the Mckinley law gave the peo-
pie free sugar. II is surprising that
the president of the sugar trust
should have refused to answer aues-
tons when called as a witness before
the senate committee Of investiga-
ton? Do you wonder at his opposi-
ton to the repeal of the sugar
schedule of the Mckinley law? The
new tariff law places duty of - per
cent al valorem upon all sugars inn
ported into this country. This is in
the interest of revenue. The obiec-
! tionable feature OF the schedule under
discussion, and the one MANY of US
desired stricken from the bill. was
that giving one-eighth of cent per
pound to the refiners. As / have
said, the democratic members OF the
house. and a majority Of the demo.
cratic senator's. earnestly desired the
total repeal of this odious provision
of the Mckinley law. The demo.
cratic house so decreed. In the sen.
ate. virtually without a democratic
majority, and with the bill at every
stage antagonized by the solid repub
lican phalanx. we were but partially
successful. But even this part Of tn,
sugar schedule. which has been Sc
much criticised, is u vast improve
ment upon the Mckinley law. Why
For the reason that the new law al
lows the refiner but one-eighth Of /,
cent per pound, while the protection
given him was one-half cent pei
pound. under the Mckinley law
Thus it will be seen that the ..pro
lection" given the refiner. under th'
new law is but little less than one
half that given him bv the Mckinle,
law. The true test Of the value Of tn,
new law is by contrasting it with tn,
old. The merits of the sugar SEIZED
ule of the new bill can only be deter
mined By its comparison with thos,
OF the Mckinley law. which it ma,
displaced.
How. then, stands the account
The new law takes from the trus
two-iifths-almost one. half-the ben
eiits il received under the McKinle'
law. The new law totally repeal
the provision of the Mckinley In,
which gave to the sugar planter
bounty of two cents per pound 70
Is years upon his product. The cos
OF this darling feature of the McKiu
ley law ives S12, 600 annually Z,
the federal treasury and the people
But this is not all. The suga
schedule of the Mckinley law was
charge upon the treasury to the ex
tent Of the bounty thus paid tn
planter. Under the new law tn
bounty is abolished, aud by careful
estimate of the secretary OF the treas
ury. under the new schedule the rev
enues coming into the treasury will
for the curreIt fiscal year. amour
to &43, 100000.