St. Landry democrat., 1884-08-30
THE SUGAR TARIFF.
Its Clear Defense by "a Free
Trader.
THE COURIER-JOURNAL AND THE FIG
UREs OF A FREE TRADE SPEAK
ERs SECRETARY.


Louisiana, fearing that Democratic
ascendency may lead to reduction
or an abolition Of duties on sugar,
are inclined to abandon their party
and lead a secession movement to-
ward Mr.. Blaine. It is not proba-
bic that this feeling, though it IN
doubtedly exists, will reach proper
tions at this time to cause any alarm.
Referring to this condition of affairs,
the Hon. John Ellis, Of Louisiana,
says
s'Om State will give Cleveland a
majority Of from $4,000 to 10000.
The reported disaffection in Louisi-
ana will amount to nothing. That
supposed disafection originated with
G. L. Walton, one Of our planters.
He is aR excellent gentleman, hon
est and straightforward. He has
many friends, but they regret that
ne has made this mistake. None
Of them, except a few, will follow
him, He viii probably control
1000 or 5000 votes
"'What is the feeling Of the sugar
planters about the tariff ?
Some well-meaning sugar plant
els have inaugurated movement
to put in the field an electoral tick
ct and ticket for Congressional
candidates pledged to protection.
This will not shake the Democratic
result one iota. The vast body of
the sugar planters are well aware
that the incidental protection which
they enjoy is derived from an ex-
elusive revenue tariff. They fur
ther know that the protectionists,
per Sc, are hostile to that tariff, and
that their interest is with the Dem
ocrats. They will vote the Demo
cratic ticket
While it is probable the sugar
tariff needs to be altered in some
minor particulars, it is essentially a
tariff for revenue, a tax the larger
part Of which goes to the govern
ment, and in this respect differs es-
sentially from the tax ON imported
iron or on imported woolens.
Let us see if we can not make
plain the distinction between tariff
for revenue and a tariff for protec-
ton. To do this we will take our
figures from a book recently pub
lished, entitled "Our Unjust Tariff
Law" by I'll. L. Nelson, clerk to the
Speaker of the House.
"In 1880 we produced in this
country hoop, band and scroll iron
to the value Of 5000, 484, and there
was imported $72O,9O3 81. The
domestic product cost $62 81 a ton
the imported article cost $45 SIS,
with freight added, S48 O6. The
rate Of duty was $31 66. The
American consumer paid a bounty
to the American manufacturer Of
$14 81, the difference between
$48 O6 and SCI 81, total bounty
to the manufacturer Of 81, Al 76-
20, and for every dollar paid into
the treasury the American manu-
facturer received 81 50 bounty
This is tax for protection with in
cidental revenue.
In the same way we learn that
the tariff on bar iron yields ST. to the
treasury and $2 SO in bounty to the
manufacturer another instance Of |
protection with incidental revenue.
"The domestic production of rails |
was $2O,978,637 imports, $685.
$50; cost respectively, $44.94 and
BIO; duty, $15.68. Foreign rails, |
duty added, 1880; bounty, Sill
33 ratio of bounty to duty, $6.4l
to 81" Another marked instance
Of protection with incidental rev.
enue.
Now we come to the tax on sugar
and nlolasses, which is Of another
class, revenue duty with incident
Il protection. ''The foreign sugar
into this country in 1880,
vas worth $68,O52,55; the average
luty per pound was 2.44c. The
yalue Of the domestic product was
81, 191, 2O0.O2. The value Of i'm
ported molasses was $8,97S, 0O8.5O
# the domestic product 1888, TO-
Il. On the total Importation of
ugar and molasses, $77, 030, 648.05,
he duty was $40, 2O3, 915.49, while
he bounty on the domestic product