The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-26
THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE ON PRO
lection.

lection.
The New York Tribune is. by common
consent the leading Republican newspa-
per Of the United States. All good Re-
publicans go TO Il as 10 political Biole
for inspiration. We print elsewhere this
morning an editorial article taken from It's
issue Of last Wednesday, entitled Taxing
or Borrowing" This article contains as
much nonsense and absurdity as anything
Of equal length that We have recently
come across. and we print 1t as fair
specimen Of what Protectorlists call ar
guments in support of their theories.
The text Of the article--a theme which
pops up In 1t at half dozen places-is
that when we have protective tariff du-
ties foreigners pay our taxes for us. This
is no new absurdity. Mckinley put 1t out
deliberately two or three years back, and
il has become a sort of fad with Protec-
tonists since. Now, we do not pretend
to any great superiority OF intelligence
but If that be a fact then we shall be
compelled to admit that we are more than
ordinarily deficient. for we can no more
understand the possibility Of such thing
than we can understand the squaring OF
the circle. Let us look into 1t.
A manufacturer of shoes in London
sells his shoes there for. we will say $3.50
a pair. This means that the cost Of shoes
requires him to realize that much from
each pair to sustain his business. Our
duties on shoes is, we will suppose, one
dollar a pair. How can the Englishman
pay that dollar and still realize s2.5 Don
his shoes unless he sells them to us at
SO 90 and If he does that do we not pay
the dollar in the first place. even though
he should turn it over to the Government?
But, in point of fact, he does not turn II
over TO the Government. A cargo OF
shoes comes consigned to a New York
merchant who has. in the first place. palS
the Englishman $50 per pair, and the
New York merchant goes TO our custom
house and there pays duty of one dol
lar pair on them and then sells them to
Americans at a rise over $3.50 a pair.
Every mans experience in life teaches
insult to the intelligence OF the American
people TO tell them the foreigner pays the
duty.
But, after arguing that the foreigner
pays the duty, the Tribune strangely
enough switches around. and In the same
article says that the Mckinley law i'm
posed high duties upon articles manufac-
tured abroad that are consumed by the
"luxury-loving and fortunate few" SO
that the poor man may be exempted as
far as possible from the payment Of taxes
and the burdens OF Government may be
imposed, as far as possible. upon the rich
How the Tribune will reconcile these two
positions we leave 1t 10 the Tribune to
explain. We quote its article in full so
that IL may be sure we do 1t no injustice.
This last position, however, II incon-
sistent with the first, is a thorough illus
tradon OF Republican and Protective tariff
policy. Justice and equality OF burdens
never enters the mind of Protectionist.
1t is favors 10 some and burdens upon
those who cannot resist that formed the
keynote OF the Protectionists' cry.
But IT was very fortunate for the dis
cussion that the Tribune selected sugar
as the illustration OF how the Republi-
cans exempted the poor man from obli-
cations as far as possible, and imposed
them upon the rich man. The Mckinley
bill did admit raw sugar free OF duty, 1t
Is true, but it imposed a half cent a
pound upon refined sugar. If Mckinley
wanted TO benefit the workingman why
did he not reverse this and admit re-
fined sugar free OF duty and impose the
tax on raw sugar? Refined sugar is what
the workman puts into his coffee while
raw sugar is what the bosses of the Sugar
Trust use In their refineries. Plainly this
half cent q pound tax was put on refined
sugar so as to give our sugar refineries--
can workingmen that much more for
their sugar than they would have to pay
II foreign sugars were admitted free Of
duty. The tax was put on for the benefit
OF the bosSes Of the Sugar Trust and had
to be paid by the workingmen. and the
Sugar Trust paid into the treasury Of the
Republican party q part OF what they
thus gouged out OF the workingmen as q
corruption fund for successive elections.
The Tribune would say this tax was
put on refined sugar to protect the EN-
pleyes Of American sugar rsnnsriss. But
there ere issA than is.ooe vssseQs -
ploysd IN SUGAR rshaW1sA WA1s thssN M