Democratic Sentinel, Volume 17, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 February 1893 — Pennsylvania Tariff Reform. [ARTICLE]

Pennsylvania Tariff Reform.

The Philadelphia Record, a good tariff-reform paper (except upon the coal combine, the sugar trust, and the textile, glass and Iron industries of Pennsylvania), estimates that duties of 1} cents per pound on sugar, 2} cents on coffee and 5 cents on tea would yield an annual revenue of 1180,000,000, and that these duties would “constitute the basis of an ideal tariff for revenue only.” It admits that “political protectionists, of course, would furiously assail this policy, and dolefully lament over duties that rob the people of a ‘free breakfast table;’ ” but says that “if they should really desire a free breakfast table iet them move for the repeal of the high duties on earthenware, glassware, table cutlery, table linen, napkins and all other taxed accessories of the American citizen’s morning meal.” It thinks that the “tariff beneficiaries, whose interests deserve consideration, recognize that the only alternative lies between this ideal tariff for revenue and a ruthless cutting of protective duties.” “These protectionists would prefer moderate revenue duties on sugar, coffee and tea to a sudden and sweeping removal of protective duties upon textile fabrics of every description, products of iron and steel, earthenware, glassware, etc., and their interests therefore will bring them, in spite of themselves. Into acquiescence In the Democratic tariff policy.” Tho Record professes to believe that this policy will not make good Democrats of the beneficiaries of protection, but will just please the American people who “have never quarreled with taxes that go directly Into the public treasury.” And this Is the way the Record interprets the results of the election: The people want to pay higher duties, do they, and treat the protected manufacturers with such kind consideration that all will become good Democrats? Their main object, then, is to build up a Democratic party by protective tariffs to please the manufacturers better tlian McKinloyism! We beg leave to differ from such Pennsylvania steeped-ln - protection conclusions. They may bo partly right In theory, hut they are practically and politically all wrong. Thepeople drew no tine-haired distinctions between revenue and protective tariffs. They voted foe lower duties to got relief. They all use sugar, tea and coffee, and will see and feel any tax that any party may hereafter put upon these articles. The name of the party that will do so will be “Mud.”