St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1884-12-13
The war on Sugar.

tectlOnlst organ ana we Will polnt
YOU out an enemy of the sugar
tariff. One Of the most extreme OF
this class of journals is the New
York Tribune. The Tribune was
also a red-mouthed Blaine organ,
and it howled and lied for him with
a ferocity and venom that put to the
blush all its fellows, except, per-
haps, it's Chicago namesake and the
Cincinnati Commercial Gazette.
The New York paper at the out
set, deluded, as its master was, with
the idea that Louisiana could be
seduced from the "Solid South,
was little sweet on us. But now,
since it has found that the sugar
planters of Louisiana preferred their
principles and the honor of their
State and country to the brides and
promises of an INSCRIPTIONS trick
ster and demagogue, the Tribune is
anxious to have them punished by
abolishing the duty on imported
sugars. That is the sort Of hair
pin the New York Tribune is. It
acts on the principle Of the pirate
and the highway robber, 'Join and
help us to rob our neighbors and
we will be your friend refuse and
we will cut your throat and rife
your own pockets 1t was from a
party whose candidate for the Pres
idency and whose greatest organs
preach this doctrine that the sugar
planters and Democrats generally
Of Louisiana helped their fellow
Democrats of the other States to
rescue our common government.
In the article before us, the New
York Tribune's, chief argument for
the abolition Of the duty on sugar
is, that such step will punish the
villainous Louisianians who refused
to support it's besmirched candidate,
But of course, on general protec-
zionist principles, it also favors free
sugar, or, if it cannot have free SUI
gar, then the prolongation Of the
Hawaiian and the ratification of the
Mexican and Spanish treaties is the
next best step to reduce the surplus
revenue and maintain a robber sys-
TEN Of protection.
On the Protectionists line the
Tribune after stating that the duty
on sugar amounts to a tax Of 81 a
year for every inhabitant Of the
United States, says:
"There is no other part OF the
present tariff, which can be changed
in such a way as to lessen the rev
enue only $5O,OO0,00O, 10 which a
change will involve SO great and di-
rect q benefit to the working people
and to the great majority of CON
sumers.
This appears to those who have
not inquired into this question a
very clear and simple fact; but it
is, on the contrary, a malicious
faIsehood. The present duty on
sugar does unquestionably amount
to tax of very nearly or perhaps
fully fifty odd millions Of dollars
upon our ffty-fve millions Of peo-
pie. But no one disputes the self
evident proposition that the people
must be taxed to maintain the gov
eminent, and the proposition Of the
revenue tariff party is, that they
shall be taxed for that purpose only.
When, therefore, a moderate tax is
imposed upon the people, and the
proceeds Of that tax 60 into the pub
lie treasury for the benefit Of the
whole country, no man has cause
of complaint or can truthfully de-
nounce it as an unjust burthen.
Now this is just the sort of tax the
duty on sugar imposes; it is in
every sense Of the word a strictly
revenue tariff. 1t amounts to some
thing over fifty millions Of dollars
paid by all classes Of the communi-
ty, according to the quantity they
consume, and nearly the whole Of
that sum goes directly into the com
mon treasury to assist in paying the
civil, military and naval expenses Of
the common government and the
interest on the common debt. A
small residue Of this great reveHue
tax, it is true, goes to the sugar
planters as Incidental protection.