The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1897-02-26
rs A TARIFF OF A DOLLAR A BOX OF Or
ANaEs cENocaATlc9

We are told by the esteemed editor
of the Pensacola News, IN mis- efforts to
force upon us the opinion that pro-
tective tariff of dollar box on or
anges is democratic, and in perfect
harmony with the traditions, policy
and creed of this great party, that
the orange is a luxury and hence
should be eaten only by the rich and
well-to.do. In support of this opin-
ion the learned editor quotes from
Noah Webster. This famous lexicog-
rapher's definition of what are luxu-
riei, we are told, is 'any food or drink
delightful to the senses" To hun
cry man corn-bread is delightful.
Should, therefore, corn-bread be the
subject of exhorbitant tariff taxation?
After being kept in hiding for some
days and nights one of his faithful
subjects conveyed to one of the kings
of England bowl of bntiermilk and
some stale bread, which h. pronounced
the most delightful meal ever set
before him. Because, fnrsoo h, stale
bread and luttermilk. are delightful 10
the ravenous tastes of hungry men,
should, perforce, protective tariff
be levied upon them?
During our civil war salt became an
article of great scarcity and only the
rich could afford its use Ii was
great luxury. But because of its scar
city would the News ad q ate "a
| democratic measure the levying of
protective tariff on sali in or.l,r Ia
build up a monopoly Of the industry
The whole policy uf protection i, re-
| pugnant To the constitution Of the
| United States and The theory on which
| our government was {, uuded, and is
certainly out of harmony with the
traditions aud principles and creed o
of the party Of Thomas jefferson.
The orange, like the apple, has long
since ceased to be a luxury, because it
enters into the daily diet of so many
people, and should not be put out of
the reach of the poor in the creation
of II monopoly of the industry by a
high protective tariff.
We say to do which is undemocratic
| As we said in previous issue there
are only a few hundred men engaged
in growing oranges, while the consum-
ers of this luscious fruit number mill
ions. The few growers want a protec-
ton or bounty from the government
| of a dollar box on each box grown.
Why should these few men be thus
| protected and made rich at the ex-
pense of the whole army of cOnsum-
ers throughout the United States? 1t
must be borne in mind that only the
| growers get the benefit of this bounty.
None of it goes to the laborer. Wheth-
er the grower gets one dollar or five
dollars per box the hire of the laborer
is the same; and, as is always the case,
the consumer "pays the freight" As
it is with the orange industry so ii is
with all others. The same principle
is found running through the warp
and wool of the whole theory. That
i. is any benefit to labor is a mockery
and a sham. 1t is selfish and section
al to the core, and the quintessence
and embodiment of 'paternalism."
Yet its advocates are continually lee
turing the deluded populists and 9TH
ers of the sin and folly of expecting
benefits and riches through legisla-
| ton.
We say, without fear of successful
/ contradiction, that the creed of the
democratic party is that in govern
ment "of the people, by the people
and for the people, every tub
should stand ON its own bottom"