Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-02-14
THE PLANTER AND THE sHowMAs.

The professed object of protection when it
was begged for by SMART manufacturers
aud others, who saw in il a means of adding
the receipt OF public tribute to their profits,
was that it would help their infant indus
tries to get on strong footing, after which
such aid would be no longer necessary. Pro.
lection was unfortunately granted, and now
the managers of businesses that have got
rich, live in their country residences, and
boast of the size of their banking accounts,
declare they cannot earn bread and butter
by their business, and they must be pro-
tected or die. The sugar-growers are among
the greediest and most rapacious of claim
ants for protection, and theirs is no infant
industry. The New Orleans papers whine
and growl about their petty sugar crop, as
if the very fate Of the Union depended upon it.
Let New Orleans carry cut its talk about max
ing thatcity az it ought to be, grand seaport;
let the flags Of the West Indies, Mexico and
the States in Central aud South America be
brought up to their landing 10 AIDED with
merchandise, and what would the sugar cul-
tivation offer beside such commerce? It
will'be said we are speaking treason against
the Louisiana interest,"; but such remark
would be mistake, for the Acknowledgements
OF the New Orleans journals themselves are
the authority on the point. For instance,
the New Orleans Pcayune, of Saturday last,
says: "The truth ia that no od uaiorem rate
will protect the planter if it is less than
sixty per centum on foreign cost OF same
quality. That is about the lowest margin
which can be fought for TO any purpose, and
nothing less is worth having. Better put
sugar on the free list, and be
done with it." This means that sugar grow
ers cannot make money by their business,
in fact it is one that is ruinous to carry Oh,
unless the grower IL maintained by means
outside of his business. The sugar-planters,
according to this statement, are like the man
who kept show, although it took more
money to keep the show up than was ever
received from it, but it brought a crowd of
customers 10 the bar that accompanied the
chow, and that is why the chow was kept up.
The Reayune's statement is exactly like that
sugar for anything it brings in. In fact, if
taeir own statements and the Ptcayune's may
be believed, they lose money by every pound
they grow. Why do they grow it, then?
Because the tariff, like the showman's bar,
not only pays the losses but leaves the plant
ers 4 splendid return. To keep up this SUI
gar-estate bar every man and woman in the
United States must pay, according TO the
RcayuRe, two and three-quarters cents for the
planter every time they buy pound of SUI
gar. The Secretary Of the Treasury, himself
pretectionist, of course, said in his report
to Congress that the average duty on sugar is
equal to two and half cents a pound
nearly ffty-three and a half per cent. ad
tulorem. The amount of cane sugar pro-
duced in this country is estimated at eleven
per cent. of the whole quantity consu med,
and it is apparent that nearly the whole
amount of revenue from this source is paid
by the consumer. SIT is believed, however"
the secretary adds, SHAT substantial reduc-
tien of the duty upon sugar may be mad
without injustice to the producers of it in
this country" But the Piedyuns, 90 far from
scknowledging what the secretary well
knows, that q substantial reduction ought to
be made on ffty-three and half per cent,
claims ~ advance 10 sixty per cent? This
il outrageous. The poorest family in the
country nust pay duty Of two and hall