The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-11-04

! of silver at the ratio OF 16 to l, it is alb
solutely and wilfully false.
TIE TARIFF.
Upon the question of the tariff / ehal
be very brief. / do not believe tha
that question is an issue in this cam
pajgn. for reasons which 1 shall state.
My Republican opponent in this district
has stated that there ia a disposition or
my part to eyade the discussion of thit
issue, for the reason that | am aware
that the views entertained by me are
at present popular with the voters Of
this district. Nothing can be farthe.
from the truth. Two years ago, and in
fact during every political campaign for
the last eight years, | have been out
spoken and explicit in my declarations
upon this subject. / have believed and
continue to believe that the only safe
system of taxation is that which is
based upon the Democratic principle OF
a tariff for revenue. / ehsll not waste
time in threHhing over tine old straw
upon the various theoretical questions
involved in the abstract proposition of a
revenue tariff or protective tariff. Up
on these questions L believe that the
people Of the United States have fully
made up their minds and they expressed
it at the polls two years ago when, after
discussion the most exhaustive and
complete which has ever been given to
an economic question in this coun-
try, they rendered their verdict over
whelmiugly in favor of the Democratic
contention and expressed their will and
decision that the Democratic theory
should be put in operation and given
the benefit of fair trial. That is all
the Democrats desire. 1t is not con-
tended by any Republican leader that
Repu blicen SUCCESS this year would in
volve any revision of the tariff. 1t is
admitted on ell hands that the present
tariff law. enacted by the last congress-
and which went into effect on the 2Sth
OF lset August. must remain in force
until after the 4th of March, 1897. I'm
til that time there could be no material
change in the tariff system. even though
the disposition should exist upon the
part OF the Republicans to undertake a
change. In proof OF this | may bs per-
mitted to quote from an interview with
ex-Speaker Thomas B. Reed at Detroit
on the 18th OF this month, and which is
reported in the San Francisco Chronicle
as follows: Mr.. Thomas B. Reed said ::
"lf the Republicans should be SUCCESS
full this fall nothing would be done with
the tariff until after 1896, and business
would have chance 10 revive.
On this Issue there could be no doubt as
to the result. The return OF the Repub-
llcan party to power would not neces-
sarily men the re-enactment OF the Mo
Kinley law. The party would not make
that issue. Changing conditions have
left room for many notifications of the
Mckinley eet." Such being the case it
is absurd to claim that the tariff is the
main issue in this campaign. So far as
the congressional candidates who are
before the people in this election are
concerned, their opinions upon the
tariff questions are absolutely inmate.
rial and irrelevant to any question which
will be vital during the next session of
congress-. There are, however. certain
provisions of the Democratic bill to
which 1t 10 proper, perhaps, that |
should briefly refer, for the reason that
they have been singled ont by nv Re-
publican opponent in his canvass of this
district as points open to the most Sc
we're criticiem. In the first place he
alleges that the removal of the per
cent bounty upon sugar is O fatal blow
to the beet sugar industry in the state.
y pom this proposition | desire to take
issue. | have just returned from cam
paign in the northern portion of the dis
trict, where | went among and
interviewed the leading growera
of beets near Salinas and Wat
sonville. and whose product constitutes
the supply OF the Spreckles mandatory
at the latter place. | have yet to meet
the first farmer who did not Indignantly
deny that be or any other farmer had
ever received the slightest benefit by
reason OF the bounty. The following
facts were stated to me by these gentle
men and cannot be successfully denied ::
Not one single beet sugar factory WAS
ever erected in California under the
provisions of the Mckinley act. All of
them were built and put in operation
prior to the enactment OF that law, and
while thu sugar Industry WAS still en-
joying the benefit of the old eystem of
revenue tariff, which has been the
Democratic theory with reference to
that article from the foundation of the
government. Prior to the enactment of
the Mckinley law the growers of beets
were paid in the district TO which
have referred from So to $3.50 a ton for
their product, according to the amount
of sugar shown by the test. Immedi-
ately alter the enactment of the Nc
kinley bill this rate was reduced and
atraight price was given of IS
ton, which has continued in force
until this year. During the whole
of this period the manufac-
tuters of sugar have received two cent3
a pound upon their product which lie
equivalent to So ton for the beta &C.
cording to the average. They thus got
their beets for nothing and 3 dollar TO
boot. Of course this fact would not
prove that the bounty had not been
benefit to the farmer, but the following
fact dosa prove it conc!usively. Imme-
diately after the repeal of the bounty
clsuae the sugar producers informed the
beet growerg that they could only pay
them $3.50 q ton for their beets, but
they could we'll afford that amount with
out any bounty. In other words, they
declared that the beeta were intrinsically
worth $3.50 a ton irrespective of the
bounty. Consequently they were of
course worth the same amount intrin-
aically during the past four years during
which thew have received the bounty.
Ii, therefore, they were giving the farmer
the benefit OF the Whole Of the bounty.
as they falsely claimed, salaY 9nld heve
PAID MIN the amount winch his oeets
were intrinsically worth, to~wit, $3.50,
plus the amount which they received