New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-10-08
Mr.. PACKARD AND THE HAWAIIAN
TREATY.

passage Of the free sugar and rice conven-
ton with The Sandwich islands:
When Mr.. Packard goes about the conn
| try parishes reading from the stump, IN MS
sing song manner, his stereotyped speecn
| denOuncing the Democratic party ior the
| passage of an act detrimental to the rice
| and sugar interests of Louisiana, be does
| but follow the lead of the scurvy Radical
demagogues in their deliberate and deep
| laid scheme of shameless misrepresenta-
| tions. which has become the characteristic
| feature of their mode of canvassing.
This is a decorous mode of treating po-
litical opponents, and proves the policy
Of the Democratic stump speakers in con-
fning their discussions to their own
party.
The issue between Messrs. Packard and
Gibson, we presume, is this: Which po-
litical party is responsible for the execu-
ton of the treaty?
A Republican President instituted the
treaty. We can not tell what Mr.. Gibson
intended to intimate in saying
"Why, gentlemen, can We forget" ssid
he, "that the Secretary of State, Mr.. Ham,
iltOn Fish, extended an invitation, year
or 80 ago, to the King of the Hawaiian
islands. who, coming to this country, was
royalty Toasted and entertained by the
members of Grants Cabinetp
We suppose the executive department
deemed such a treaty advantageous, but
we have seen no one charge them with
having been Influenced by a mer-
cenary consideration in so doing. If
we turn to the treaty negotiated in 1854
between Democratic administration on
the one part and the government of Great
Britain on the other, there will be found q
convention, or treaty of reciprocity, iden-
teal in its purpose with that negotiated
by the Republican administration of Cen
eial Grant. We have never known con-
tumely visited upon the name Of MIR.
Marcy, the Democratic author of the
treaty with England, although he is the
author of the Democratic axiom, that the
spoils belong to the victors.
The government Of the nation may then
negotiate any treaty deemed for national
advantage, just as the administration of
Washington did that of Jay, perhaps the
most unpopular of all our treaties.
Among the articles to be admitted duty
free from the Sandwich islands were those
of sugar and rice. They are prime arti-
cles of food, produced under disadvan-
tages in certain parts of the United States.
They have enjoyed the advantage of
duty deemed by their producers protec-
tive. These producers have protested
strenuously against the repeal of these
duties. The treaty with the government
of the Sandwich islands provides that it
shall not take effect until law to carry
il into operation shall have been passed
by the Congress of the United States of
America. The Republican administra-
ton having, then, negotiated this treaty,
it became indispensable to its ratification
that the Congress Of the United States
should repeal the duty upon all articles
included in the schedule of Sandwich
products. Until the duties on all Sand
wich products included in a schedule
enumerating rice, sugar and its products,
with some twenty other articles, should
be repealed, the treaty was imperative.
The Republican President and Senate
the treaty.
The Democratic House of Representa-
tives repealed the duties. We have be-
fore us the House vote, from which it ap-
pears that one hundred and fifteen men,
bers voted for the repeal of the protection
on the sugar and rice of the Southern
States. OF these members, according to |
the political classification, a majority were
Democrats. If asked, then, upon whom
the responsibility of this act should fall,
We answer that the Democratic House
night have defeated it, and are therefore
subject to whatever blame may attach to
he measure. When, however, wc look to
he published principles Of the Demo-
,ratic party, we find that they but carry
out their own principles. Their platform
It st. Louis denounces the present tariff
'as masterpiece of injustice, inequality
md false pretenses." They were, there
ore, consistent with themselves in
'epealing the protection on sugar and
ice. Their platform also demands that
IL customhouse taxation shall be only for
evenue." According to this doctrine. no
Democrat could have been expected to
'ote for protection in any shape; nor can
ny Democrat, standing on the st. Louis
latform, vote to terminate the Sandwich
reaty, or to replace the duty on sugar or
ice imported from that country. Moth
ng except a remuneration of principle can
yer justify any Democrat in voting for
he treaty repeal, and Mr.. Gibson and his
Democratic colleagues who voted for pro-
ection to sugar and rice did SO in the
eeth of their party principles. We sup
ose they will have the same dispensation
pr this dereliction usually granted to
Their Democrats who vote for railroad
and grants and local improvements by
be Federal government. We affirm this
that no Democrat can con-
istently vote for protection on sugar,
ice, or any other article of American
reduction.
The Republican party both can and
hould vote for protection on sugar and
ice with consistency. 1t is their duty to
Ike those articles into the circle and