The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1895-01-02
THE DEMOCRATIC PRES.
The Sugar Trust Again.

lon of price manipulators is the proclaimed
intention of shutting down refneries, thereby
throwing $1,000 employees out of work.
Like all other monopolies with which the |
country is cursed, this one is exceedingly |
fertile in devising schemes for the plunder-
ing of the public and the sacrificing of labor,
at the same time offering with equal readi-
ness economic apologies for its harmful ac |
ton.
In the present instance the sugar barons |
assert that because of an imaginary free su-
gar bill and protective hostility against
them by the present Congress, they must
close in order to realize sufficient profits to
pay their dividends.
Ot course such plea will pass with intel
hgent Americans for exactly what it SIS worth
nothing. The truth is that the Trust is
simply exercising a right given it by the ex-
listing social institutions, to squeeze the con-
sumers and criminally abandon the welfare
of the producers of its commodity.
The sugar trust came into existence under
the Mckinley law, by the operation of which
1t extorted from the people an enormous
tribute OF money, not penny of which went
into the National Treasury.
Under that law the Trust developed into
gigantic monopoly, and had become all but
greater than the Government itself. 1t is
because the Democrats Topped off some of
the most dangerous tentacles of this ugly
octopus, and diverted someting like $4,000
OOO Of its revenues into the public Golfers,
that it has nailed up its doors and bade its
employees starve. 1t hopes by so doing to
compel Congress to restore to it the unfair
advantages given it under the Mckinley
law, by reenacting that part of the mlschiev-
Gus measure. That is all there is to it, and
when the greedy gorgers discover that a
Democratic Congress will not grant its i'm
perious demand, it will simply resume op-
erations provided it shall really close its
refneries now until the next Republican
Congress conveues, when it will again make
its demands, which, judging from the past,
will be speedily complied with by that party.
The Republican press have been SO per-
sistent and unreasonable in its attacks on
the sugar schedule of the present tariff law,
that many people would, no doubt, in the
event of any material advance in the price
of the commodity during its existence, con-
denim the measure unqualifedly. Indeed
il is now -tI,e-1rssJoCt or DIIIer remuneration
by class of citizens who object, they say,
to favoring any monopoly with tariff on
competitive importations.
AS an abstract proposition, this is correct,
and when the proper time comes, "tariff
for revenue only" will be as unjustifable
and indefensible as prohibitive tariff tax
now.
But under the existing order of things and
the present ideas of the American people
ON these matters, it is necessary to raise our
Government revenues by means of customs
duties. This being true, the question then
arises as to the articles from which the taxes
should be realized, bearing in mind always
that it is the province of every good govern
ment to legislate for the greatest good of the
greatest number.
Under the recent Mckinley law huge
Trusts sprang into existence on every hand,
until there was scarcely an article of neces-
sary consumption that was not controlled or
very largely influenced by these despotic
combinations. Among them was the Sugar
Trnst.
Now the important thing, too frequently
lost sight of in comparing the Mckinley
sugar tariff with the present ole, is the re-
spective amounts of revenue realized to the
Government under the two laws, which un-
der the one was nothing, and under the 9th
er will be, as above stated, something like
$4,000 600. Granted, for the sake of the
argument, that sugar will be somewhat ad'
vanced in price because of the duty placed
upon it, it becomes then simply matter OF
whether it is desirable to pay little more
for our sugar, or more for our clothing and
the numerous other articles that are of great
er necessity than the item of sugar.
The present tariff gives the people free
lumber. Which is the more important to
the thousands of laboring people who build
themselves homes in the course of each year,
that they pay less for their sugar or their
lumber? Immense reductions have also
been made in the wooden schedules. Will
it benefit poor man more to reduce the
price of his sugar than to lower that of his
clothing? The answers to these questions
is apparent.
Revenue ther must be raised at present
by tariff tax. Every form of taxation is a
burden, no matter whether direct or indirect,
ton should be to cause its enactment to op-
crate the most benefcially to lhe masses.
A tax on sugar is one of the least burden
some, and sugar trust can at most infiet
but a modicum of injury, compared to that
capable of being practiced against the people
by a coal, clothing, lumber, or dozen other
monopolies born under the Mckinley law
1t cannot be logically or equitably urged
that because of the existence of a particular
Trust its product mu st therefore be put on
the free list, when by SO doing the Govern
ment is deprived of larger revenue that
would as a consequence have to be raised
by taxing or increasing the tax on other
more essential articles of consumption.
Measured by the comparative freedom
from hardship in paying the tariff increase,
sugar is one of the most legitimate articles
of taxation under revenue tariff.
The Republican press is very glib and free
with its free sugar advice, knowing very well
in the event of free sugar that the tax would
have to be simply transferred to some other
item of living where its payment would be a
far more serious matter to the consumer.
Again, what do they mean by free sugar
Do they mean a return to the late law that
let in the raw material free, thereby cheap
ening it to the Trust and depriving the Gov
ernment of a large revenue, while at the
same time taxing the refined article one-half
cent per pound, and still further fortifying
the odious institution by paying it bounty
on every pound of sugar it produced.
The present law is just and practical
one, and should not be disturbed until GUS
toms houses are things of the past.
WASHINGTON LETTER.
from Our Regular Correspondent.
WASHINGTON. D. G.. December %, 1894.