Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 20, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 June 1891 — CHEAP SUGAR [ARTICLE]

CHEAP SUGAR

Remarks of Mr. Wm. Lloyd Garrison Concerning Sugar, in his Address at Danvers, April 8. Just now the protectionists are jubilant over removal of the duty on sugar, and point to it as a vindication of the McKinley bill. Is admitting sugar untaxed protection or free trade? If it is protection, then I am a protectionist and am willing to work for more of the same sort. If it is free trade, why are you so happy over it, Mr. Protectionist? Especially since you profess to believe the foreigner pays the duty, and its removal is therefore a boon to him instead of to us. Ah, bHt the price has been cheapened two cents a pound to the American consumer, you declare. Does not that look as if he paid the tax before McKiniey struck it off? Or does frae trade in sugar save the foreigner and the \ merican each two cents a pound, and if it does, why is it not wise to extend the blessing further and treat wool, iron and coal the same way? Indeed it would .have been far better to liberate those commodities or necessities before freeing sugar. And for this reason, the duty on sugar was a revenue duty, and was nearly all paid into the Treasury of the United States. There was a satisfaction in that. But when we pay an extra price for wool, coal, or iron, which the tariff compels us to do, who gets the benefit of it? The Treasury a part, surely, but a small part. The wool-growers; the ironmasters, and the coal-barons of Pennsylvania absorbs the bulk of it, which explains why Ohio and Pennsylvania were the strongest advocates of the MoKinley bill and contributed so liberally to the campaign funds that elected this protective Administration. And you men of Massachusetts sit passively, nay, you assist in permitting these wool nDd mineral States to tax this Commonwealth for their own benefit, or rather for the benefit of a fraction of the people of those States who hold the monopoly of those industries while our foundries are idle and New England suffers. When a despot treats his people so, submission is a necessity, but when the sovereign people of a republic treat themselves in the same way, they deserve the characterisation of Carlyle, which we can apply to this oountry as’well as to England, and say, “ The United States is composed of 63,000,000 people; mostly fools." One of the consolations of working in a good cause is the continual help extended by the enemies of reform. Mr. McKinley, Mr. Blaine, or Senator Aldrich never make a plea' for protection that does not bear indirect testimony of the wisdom and rightfulness of free exchange. Now here is Mr. Uavemever, the head of the great sugar trust, and a strong protectionist, who testifies unconsciously that it is free trade which promotes infant industries. He says: “ One of the cohsequences of the reduction of the duty and lessening price on sugar will be the establish ment of new industries in this oountry. For instance, we have no large manufactory of jam here, while in England they manufacture upwards of 100,000 tons a

year. It is probable that such an industry will shortly be started here, because we can now enter into competition with the English." Only think of the heresy which this admission implies. Free trade not only nnrtnres infant industries, but enables them to compete with the pauper labor of England. And do not forget that infants thus born have every prospect of longevity and have not to shiver in the wind every time Congress meets for fear the puties willlbe disturbed. And they are saved the gloomy orospect of dependency and pauperism which the hundred years old infants of to-day are experiencing.