The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-01-29
THE SUGAR TAX AGAIN.

| The Neso Orleans Bulletin, upholdipg the
sugar tax, says, "our sugar crops are SUBJ
ject to large fluctuations" Very true; but our
population is not. The crop of human beings
does not increase and decrease to suit the
sugar crop. Why make notwithstanding
population dependent upon so huctuating a
crop, which, at the best, can supply but third
of the demand?
The Bulletin says protection has been ex-
tended to the iron, cotton, and woolen interests
of the North-why withhold it from the SUGAR
interest of the South? We are not Protec-
ZIONIST, but the doctrine of Protection, absurd
as it is, does not propose to foster the growth or
manufacture of what may not be finally so de-
veloped, as to need no protection. 1t assumes
that we can produce enough iron at home, to
render us independent of the foreign supply,
if we secure it against competition long enough
for the profitable investment of sufficient labor
and capital. This is true-and it is no less
true, that without such protection, we should
in due time accomplish the same result-we
think, in a better way. But who makes any
such assumption in relation to the sugar
growth? All the protection in the world can
not bring it up to the demand-cannot enable
the planters to render us independent of for
eign supplies. We have always been, and
shall always be, dependent upon other coun.
tries for the larger portion of our consumption.
The sugar tax, then, cannot be justified by the
doctrine of Protection. 1t is simply in the ma
ture of an onerous and a perpetual bounty, paid
by the millions of the People, to between two
and three Thousand planters, to enable them to
live luxuriousy.
Withdraw protection, says the Bulletin. and
many Of the planters would be ruined. Be it
SOS the temporary loss of few hundred
planters to outweigh the rights and Interests
Of the American People? But ruin would not
follow. If the planters could not raise sugar
proftably without protection. they would trans-
fer their capital and force to the growth of cot
ton or rice, for both of which the market is
always brisk. But, it is quite likely that the
abolition of the protective duty would, in
the end, by subjecting the planters to compe-
tition, make them more thrifty, more careful,
more economical, more attentive, and there
fore more productive. Security against COM
petition is not the best way to promote indus
try and invention.
But, says the Bulletin, abolish our protective
duties, and you will soon see the Spanish Gov.
eminent laying additional export duties, so
that the price of sugar will still be kept up.
Very wel--its folly then will afford the very
protection which, you say, is necessary to the
American planter. If the Spanish Govern
ment is fool enough to Cypress its subjects,
diminish consumption, and of course produc-
ton, by absurd duties, giving rise to enormous
prices, then there is no necessity for the Ameri-
can Government to play the fool too.
AS for the sectional clamor got up by few
Southern papers against the repeal of the tax,
it is ridiculous. One hundred thousand hogs
heads of sugar is rather small item to consti-
tute great Southern interest. The seven or
eight millions Of white People at the South are
hardly dependent for existence on twenty-four
hundred planters.
We suppose the People Of the South, like
their brethren of the North, use good deal of
sugar, and would have no more objection than
they, to paying six cents pound, instead of
twelve or fifteen. The sugar tax is national
wrong-~al sections would be benefited by its
abolition.