The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1901-10-04
SAD FOR AmERlcA-eooD FOR CUBA

United states free, or at a reduced import duty
while Cuba will make concessions on cereals and
machinery exported from the United States.
Considered from a local standpoint. such an
agreement would be very Objectionable. The
tobacco industry Of Florida would be badly
hurt. II the agreement should also include CT
gsrs. a. is probable Florida's chief manutactur-
ing industry would be injured. Florida Is not
Yet a great sugar-producing state, but her adapt
ability to such production is not surpassed by
that Of any other state IN the Union. and 1t Is
reasonably certain that in a few years she
would become a great sugar producing state, II
r-eseut conditions were left undiSturbed.
There might be some compensation TO Florida
II the increased trade between the United States
and Cuba should pass through Florida ports, but
very little Of il would. Sugar would go by water
70 New York rather than by rail. and the same
Is true to a very grea, extent of tobacco No APP
preciable amount of the export cereals or
machinery would be made through Florida
ports.
But this argument appeals only TO Floridians.
Viewed from another standpoint, such treaty
would be Questionable to all sections of the
Union. II would entail great loss of revenue
that is cheaply collected. There is much more
OF revenue than of protection in the tariffs on
sugar and tobacco. This would be lost If these
tariffs were repealed, and the Americans would
find no corresponding gain. II would be great
e. thing for Cuba, for the Cubans would make
almost TO the extent that the treasury lost III rev.
euue The loss by admitting Cuban sugar free
could be almost exactly computed, but the loss
on tobacco could not be estimated so accurately,
because Of the different rates on the different
grades or on the material in its different stages
Of approach TO the finished product. 1t is safe
20 say however that on the two the loss OF rev.
enue would amount 10 not less than $4,000 900
per aunum. not in the interests Of the people OF
the United States, tut entirely in the interests OF
the people Of Cuba. Then, if the tariff on to-
hscco or tobacco products were abolished or re-
duced. a corresponding reduction in the inter
nal revenue taxes would be necessary, which
would probably nun the total loss above $40 ooo-
ooo per annum.
The grain growers would not be materially
benefited for they already sell Cuba practically
all the grain imported to the island. The man
ufacturers Of machinery would not be greatly
benefited. for American machinery is already
sold ell over the world. Such an agreement
would confer all its benefits on the Cubans, and
wOulQ IAkC lIOIIl aIuCAlNdu SONCinhOut a
large part Of its Tevenue.-rimes-Union and
Citizen.
1t will be seen from the above arti-
Gle that the Times-U Union and Citizen
exhausts the whole argument in favor
of Q protective tariff.
1t will be seen also that like the
whole theory and practice of the sys-
tenn the argument stripped to the core
IL entirely selfish and sectional.
Limiting the argument even to Flor.
ida, the state which the abolition of
the system is supposed to hurt worse,
and what do we find?
A very few men manufacture cigars
while the great mass Of the male pop
ulation smoke them; yet, to enrich a
few manufacturers, the great mass
must pay tribute.
Every man that smokes q cigar does
not smoke less than three day and
some as many as twelve.
III the duty were removed the prices
would Immediately decline and cigar
that the consumer now is compelled
10 pay ten cent. for could be bought
for a nickle.
BY the abolition of the system the
moderate smoker would save fifteen
cents day and the more inveterate
smoker more than fifty cents a day,
even circumscribing the argument to
the lower grade Of goods. OF course
on the finer grades the saving would
he much more.
shifting the debate from cigars to
sugar the argument in favor of the
abolition Of the system becomes
still more imperative for the reason
that sugar il no longer classed as a
luxury but is now considered, even in
economic literature, as a necessity in
every home.
In proportion 10 those who manu-
fActure sugar in Florida, how many
consume ito
Yet, for the purpose Of enriching a
handful of manufacturers, every man,
woman and child in Florida is taxed
on every teacup Of sugar consumed.
The whole argument from A to u is
selfish, sectional and wrong.
IL il repugnant to our early tradi-
tons; il is in viola ton of the spirit il
not the letter of the constitution un.
der which We live; it is favoritism
from start TO irish.
We hope To live to see the fullness
of time ushered in when under the