The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-06-14

public letter in 1878, while Jackson, an
other Democratic Idol, voted for . tariff
similar 70 the Mckinley tariff that the
modern Wilson blll Democracy vish 10
destroy
Protection was upheld by Federalisis,
Wings. by Democrats Ike Jefferson and
Jackson before there was 9 Republican
party. Higher duties were laid upon
many imports BY these parties than by
the Mckinley tariff. The modern De-
nlocraey since il ceased 10 be national
party, as under Jackson, and became
sectional party in practice, seems 20 hold
that protection is only unconstitutional
when il benefits hopelessiy Republican
states like Massachusetts and Pennsy-
vanis. while protective duties which con-
Germ New Jersey or the South are con-
rinued as within the scope Of national
power. Rice, sugar. suinac. peanuts and
other Southern products are given full
protection under the Wilson bill. The IN
dustrics of New Jersey are tenderly dealt
with save the potteries OF Republican
Trenton. The sugar trust and other
A5A4OA3 OCALQt&0tAI AEAA9NAt~S
given ample bearing and satisfaction,
but the workingmen Of Pennsylvania
were sent home unheard. The tariff
measure framed by the tariff reform"
majority in the senate taxes the people OF
the United States upwards Of $50 100000
in the interest of the Democratic sugar
trust Under the Mckinley act sugar
l. r. Grtu
sugar will necessarily be tax which will
have to be paid by the consumer. The
Democratic sugar trust will fare far better
under the Wilson bill than it did under
the Mckinley act. which took the duty of
Of sugar, and thus prevented the sugar
trust from leyying the annual tax of $780,
coo. 900 which the tariff bill now before the
senate would hand over to it.
The Wilson bill increases the duties on
articles in common use. while il lessons
the duties on articles exclusively pur-
chased by the rich. Sugar will cost the
poor people of the country so, 600.
while il is now free. The duty on cut
nails has been reduced to s.. and on trace
chains 10 81. while the reduction in duty
on diamonds is 100000. on decorated
China 81. 600 900. on laees 81 ,oo0. 0o0 on kid
gloves 81. 900 900. and the finest wooilens
si4,000, 900. The reductions, in short. on
the articles mainly used by the common
people aggregate 81, 600. coo, while the re-
auctions on articles of luxury amounts to
SIS, 0o0,o 600.
The Democratic demagogue on the
stump solemnly AYERS that every duty is a
tax on the consumer, and yet when the
Democracy come to formulate teritf bill
they reduce duties on articles of common
use by sl1.o0O,0 900, while they lower the
duties on diamonds, laces and other arti-
cles of luxury by SIS. 10000.
The Republican champions Of the Nc
Kinley tariff have always denied that
every duty is a tax on the consumer; they
have contended that duty so far from
being tax may by stimulating home COM
petition reduce prices, but the Democratic
tariff reformers, from Cleveland down.
have always dogmaticaily asserted that
every duty is necessarily tax. Neverthe-
less the Democracy have in the amended
Wilson tariff bill now before the senate
deliberately favored the rich against the
poor to the tune of SOS 100000.