Ex-Congressman Johu De Witt Warner is oue of the best posted men in this -country on sugar tariffs. When in congress, he carried the house for free sugar. In a recently published statement he estimates the net protection to the trust given by the Aldrich schedule ac from 35 cents to $1.14 on every 100 pounds of reflned sugar. Without attempting to give his argument as to each of the -ways in which the trust would be protected we give his summary of trust proflts as follows: Specifie differential $0. 18@IO.4O4l&irty-nve per cent ad valorem differential 0.14 0.21 Countervailing duty, say 0.08 '0.36 Additional by substitution of 75 per cent ad valorem for speciflc dnties in low grades 0.00 0.18 Total $email@example.com In the vast majority of cases, however, th actual result is between 45 and 60 cents per 100 ponnds net protection to the trust, and it is impracticable so to combine circomstances as to bring this below 40 cents or above 80 cents for any considerable amount. As au item of tariff taxation the sugar schedule is ideal from the protectionist standpoint Sugar is the one article used by poor and rich to an equivalent extent, and a tax on which therefore falls most heavily on the poor in proportion to their ability to pay it. lts production and distribution aie controlled by a concern wbich is at onoe the greatest of our mean trusts and the meanest of our great ones. It is consistent therefore that on this ne article there should be levied more than one-third of our total tariff taxation, and that our people should be bur■dened by a tax of more than $90,000,000 that realizes less than $70,000,000 for the treasury and more than -$20,000,000 for the sugar refining comibine, while the same combine is enabled 1 net an additional $10,000,000 by the opportunity given it to import at present duty rates raw sugars from ■which it can make refined to be sold by it under tflie enhanced price assured it by the proposed Aldrich schedule. The net "protection" of from 4ó to 60 cents per 100 ponnds given the trust on its refining process alone should be considered .as sufflcient when we remember that the labor cost of this process is slightly less than 6)4 cents per 100 pounds- that is to say, Senator Aldrich, in behalf of American labor, proposes undnly to tax wage earners in order to give the trust irom five to seven times as much "protection" as it pays for all the labor involved. Next to the wage earner the farmer is dear to the protectionist heart, and he is therefore equally favored by the sugar schedule. Of late years throughout the eastern and middle and many of the central states the competition cf the far west has driven our farmers from grain raising into fruit culture. This has now so developed that except for exports of canned goods - jams, preserves, etc. - in which we ought to supvply the world, the business of fruit raising has, in its turn, become almost profitless. And poverty is now assured to those who are dependent upon fruit culture by the proposed tax of two cents a pound on augar. This increases by from -80 to 75 per cent the article which would make up from 40 to 75 per cent of the total weight of the jams, etc., the export of which might insure living prices for the surplus fruits, but which is now practioally prohibited. And this is "a government of the ipeople, by the people and for the peo;ple." Who are "the peopleï"