Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1894-09-20
LEGISLATION ON SUGAR.
How Republican Laws Have Robbed tbs
I1sfaIaI

How Republican law. Have Robbed the
People.
There has been much republican misrep-
resentation of the new sugar schedule and so
much effort to confuse the public mind that 1t
is no wonder that some are surprised to ma
that the sugar schedule OF the tariff reform Dill
Is a distinct and emphatic triumph for tarin
reform. The best way 20 explain the sugar
tarln is to tell the story OF sugar legislation
There are three stages Of sugar legislation
the republican stage before the Mckinley bill.
the stage of the Mckinley bill and the present
cew stage or the democratic tariff reform bill.
The sugar tariff before the Mckinley bill was
a so-cailed revenue tariff ON all sugar coming
into the United States 1t was a graduated
scale of duties. rising with the quality or grade
Of the sugar. The average duty was about 21s
cents per pound
These duties, while chiefly for revenue,
acted as a very high protection to the Louisi-
ana sugar growers but that was popularity
supposed to be their only protective feature
There was announcement in the bill that
there was any protection for the sugar re-
dners- There was. however, hidden in that
schedule Of graduated duties practical pro-
lection for the refner. How much it amounted
to was not generally known 1t was not public
property. 1t was probably one-hah cent a
pound But the protection was there. 1t was
part of the protective system OF the repub-
lican party to protect reiners and sugar farm
ers. So much for the first stage Of the sugar
tariff
Now comes the Mckinley bill. The repub-
ncan party, when 1t went into power after 1888.
found the government in the possession OF 4
very large revenue. 1t had a hundred millions
Of dollars year surplus The republicans
saw that that was a temptation to the people
and to their enemy, the democratic party, to
cut down the protective tariff. because, as the
government had more money than it wanted,
II was perfectly natural that it should cut down
the taxes, and first of all the protective tariff
taxes To remove that temptation and protect
protection the republicans then in power made
up their minds to wipe out the surplus first by
largely increasing the expenditures OF the
government by raising the expenditures to the
billion-dollar figure; but that they did Lot
think enough, so they also cut down the in
come Of the government by cutting OF the
revenue part Of the tariff on sugar S56 100000
year. They wanted to destroy the surplus and
create deficit, and they actually turned
surplus of slOOOO0.OOO into a deficit OF
$40. 600 900 so as to remove the temptation OF
the people to cut down protective taxes
But they did not want to lnture the protec-
tive feature OF the sugar schedule They did
not want to take OF the protection to the re-
fners. Mark. however, that the situation In
the refining business had changed. We did not
make much objection to this protective duty In
the old time, partly because most people knew
nothing about 1t, and partly because at that
time refining was free and the competition
among rehners was very keen and kept prices
Ii.
operation that had been changed. The compe-
| tition had ceased, and the sugar trust had
risen up and made refining practical mcncp-
oily. The Mckinley people wanted to give the
trust big protective duty on sugar. but they
| did not want the government to get any rev.
| enue out OF the sugar, and the consequence
| was that the Mckinley bill arranged that all
raw sugar coming into the country should
| come in free. but no refined sugar or sugar
| that could compete with that produced oy the
| trust could come in free.
Mckinley gave the trust the advantage OF
| free raw material, then highly protected the
! trust ) product He gave the free sugar to the
| trusts and the protected sugar 10 the people,
! Refined taxed oue-nllf q cent a pound and
| one-tenth OF Il cent extra If 1t came from Ger
! many or france. the theory that those coun
| tr:e, paid bountieS to their sugar growers. But
| while this arrangement provided we'll for the
| trust. the removal OF the duties on raw sugars
| took away the protection OF Louisiana sugar
| growers. This led to that extraordinary feat
| IRE Of the Mckinley bill creating bounty OF
two cents pound on all sugar raised by the
| farmers OF Louisiana, Nebraska, California
| and Vermont 1t was the first bounty ever
| created in America, and 1t will doubtless be
| the last. So that was the situation in the Nc
| Kinley bill. The Mckinley bill made the sugar
tax pure protective tax for the first time in
| the history Of the country and created boun-
| ty system. Sugar was now openly protected
| There was a straight-out duty OF half cen!
| per pound on ree-
Nov, how did the republicans fepfesen. this
| action to the people: They went bsfete tht
| country with the cry Of free sugar When thes
| had only made free the raw material Of thl
| trust and when they had given protection o,
| half a cent or six-tenths per pound which the
| people had to pay. They sought to carry the
election of 1892 on the theory offree sugar when
for the first the ~ the history OF this country
| they had made sugar IN openly-protected artl
Gle, and that for the benefit OF the sugar trust
| alone. The reason the people were deceived
! was their unwiliingness to believe that great
| party would deliberately decc.To tLcin By such
| a statement, but that Is what the republican
! party did. They :Fe-e aided II their deception
| by the lower price OF sugar. As two and one
| half cents revenue duty had been taken OF
| sugar, of course the nlarhet price OF sugar was
| lower. Notwithstanding the TACT that the peo-
! pie were taxed half .e:4t by Mc4AIlley for the
benefit of the trust
Now cone 20 the third stage Z. this bill
which we have just passed. The tari.i Iesorm-
ers of congress want absolute sugar, and
they will get it 4 the people vote Tor Tariff rs-
form this fall. But they found the sugar trI It
intrenched in the senate. Now VIII It :, In
trenched behind: 1t was intFenched behind
its old friends, the solid republican party the
friends who had rirst protected. and, therefore.
practically created it. Gnd a few prOtect.onIsLS
who call themselves democrats. but who BY 10
tests that now prevail are democrats.
But did the tariff reiormers fail? Were
they defeated: Not at all; by means de-
teated The democrats were not able to get
free sugar this time, but they got great deal
more than the protectio1ist majority wanted
to give They did not destroy the sugar trust,
but they hold the battlefield themselves. and
the essential difference between the Mckinley
sugar tariff and the new sugar tariff Is just
this: The Mckinley tarir gives the sugar
trust half cent protection. That half cent
protection Of the Mckinley bill has been re-
duced to about three-tenths OF a cent by the
new bill The protective duty Of the McKin-
ley bill has been reduced one-third in our bill.
That is what we got by fighting We did not
get the whole of our demand any more than we
got free iron ore or free coal, but reduced
iron ore from seventy-ftve to forty, coal from
seventy-five to forty, and we reduced sugar
from nifty to thirty.
The protectionistS also included In the new
bill a revenue duty OF ~ per cent. on raw sugar
on the ayowed ground that the government
needed the money In addition to the proceeds
of the income tax. but really to restore to our
sugar farmers half OF the protection that was
cut OF by the democratic repeal OF the Mckin-
ley bountfes When the secretary of the treas
ury said at the last moment that this revenue
duty absolutely necessary the mouths Of
tariff reformers were closed, but either some
other revenue must be found or expenditures
must be cut down, for the tariff reformers will
not De content until sugar is made wholly free.
in this way it is 40 per cent OF the average diff
ference between raw and refined sugars abroad.
Or the cost of manufacture, which is 45 or 81
cents hundred pounds and the one-eighth
cent dinerential- called it b cents 1t may
be or cents more
That is the story of sugar It is q fact that
sugar has not advanced since the new tariff
went into effect. II reached an extremely low
point last spring and early this summer and is
q cent higher now than the lowest point, and