The Taney County republican. (Forsyth, Mo.) 1895-1992, 1916-03-09
Goodbye to our old Friend, Free Sugar"

~JS " NS' VIZ 'S"St INV SHbS''
The Democratic editor OF the Au-l
gusta (Ga.) Chronicle editorializing on
the action OF the Democratic congress
in voting to repeal free sugar" thus
bids goodbye to one oi his iavorite
iree'trade heresies:
"Ali Of which was expected and is,
probably, the right thing TO do-see-
ing that the government has not been
raising enough revenue under the new
tariff laws and what is more, seeing
that there is still need for more and
more--but; nevertheless and not with
standing, we can't restrain the feel
ing that we are parting with an old
political friend when we give up free
sugar" And Of course, we are giving
it up for very long time to come.
We have fought many political
battle together-we Democrats and
free sugar 1t has stood by US in
times Of stress-when neither free sill
yer nor anything else free would pre-
vail-and great was its power as a raj,
lying cry.
For years we have been told that we
couldn't get along without free sugar
that the breakfast table fairly groaned
under the burden Of the Louisiana
cane planter and the beet sugar baron;
that the Sugar Trust stuck its greedy
finger in every mans cup OF coffee
and that without free sugar pretty
soon, this country was In a fair way to
become a vassal state, or something
equally reprehensible.
Moreover, we were told that the
sugar tariff war a direct tax levied on
every breakfast table in America, and
that it fell heaviest on the poor and
pure in heart-provided they we're very
fond Of sugar in theirs. So the great
American people rose up, and smote
the sugar barons hip and thigh; and
free sugar was proclaimed king
with just the lapse Of a year or two, or
until May, 1916, to enable the people
to get accustomed to this great bles'
sing before it overwhelmed them.
But alas and alack! ere the ides
Of May are here, our Democratic
brethren in congress met in caucus
and almost unanimously determined
that the days Of free sugar shall be
withheld from us for yet awhile longer
perhaps indefinitely. And all be.
cause this country needs large army
and larger navy and must dig up the
money to pay for it: $40,000,000 a
year out Of the sugar barrel, for one
thing.
And we are not complaining; on the
contrary, we really doubt if free sugar
would have made so much difference
with the average breakfast table any
way.
But what concerns US is the way ir
which the Hon. Claude Kitchin
Democratic house leader, revamped
an old Republican protective tariff ar
gument, when in explaining why We
are not to have free sugar said the
expense Of preparedness would have
to be net with as little burden anC
annoyance to the people as possible;
hence, they would just keep the ta1
on sugar.
We seem TO recall that the Republi
cans used much the same language
that nobody really felt the tariff on sug
ar-When our Democratic spell-binder.
were telling US that if we didn't ge
free sugar pretty soon we would sinh
under the weight Of this 'breakfas
table ,ax'-and probably, die, in tht
end, for want Of a sufficient amount o
sugar in our system.
Truly, then, we are sad. Not mere
ly that we are to lose free sugar'-jus
before we get it-but even more a
the manner Of its going"
The Congress remarks the Indi
ana Times" waits for action by