Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 July 1892 — Consumers Never Petition Congress. [ARTICLE]

Consumers Never Petition Congress.

The American Economist asks, with a great deal of satisfaction, “will the ‘reformer’ please tell us why the only petition for free wool came from a few selfish free raw-material manufacturers? ’’ and adds as a clincher to this question: “We should think that if the object of the measure were really to provide cheaper clothing for the masses, petitions asking for its passage would have come in from all sections of the country, bearing the signatures of thousands of poor, taxed consumers. But this was not so.” It might be inferred from the way in which the question is put that duties are charged only at the request of oonsumeys, and not at the behest of selfish EaMufdcturers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. effectf upon the consumer aro spread out over so many, and the myriad of those upon whom the tariff bears most heavily—the poor—understand so little the cause of their burdens that p titions seldom, if ever, come from this class. It is those who are to be benefited by protective tariffs —rich, selfish, grasping manufacturers —it is these comparatively few who petition Congress and send paid attorneys to the lobbies, and who, by bribes and threats, get the duty that will rob each of the 65,000,000 consuinors of but a few cents or dollars, but which will put thousands or millions of dollars into their pockets. For instance the A cent duty per pound, on refined sugar is now costing each consumer only about 40 cents per year —so trifling a sum to each that no petition against the duty has ever been presented to Congress, and yet it means an extra profit of $25,000,000 a year to the eighteen or twenty refiners who compose the sugar trust. And it is these latter who have always appeared in the lobbies and committee rooms of Congress in opposition to any restriction of duty. It is the fear of this trust that now prevents both parties from removing a duty which produces uo revenue. The Democratic Ways and Means Committee would gladly remove it, but they believe a free sugar bill could not pass the Senate and would only enable the Republicans to “fry the fat” out of this trust during the campaign. The Economist knows well enough that this is the regular order of procedure and hence its pretended surprise is only to deceive its credulous readers.