Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-03-02
1,nrorinn thc NIononoIies.


Mr.. Morrison could hardly have under
stood how very small the margin Of profit
Is in the cultivation of rice when ne
framed his Tariff bill. If so great re-
Gnction is made in the rice duty az he
proposes it is the opinion Of those well
informed that the cultivation Of rice in
this country must finally cease. 1t can
hardly be possible that his purpose is to
sacrifice the rice and sugar interests in
order TO gain for his bill the support Of
more influential interests; but If he has
no purpose OF that kind why is it that he
strikes such heavy blow at these two
I articlesY Neither of them is a monopoly.
About one-fourth OF the entire revenue
from customs comes from sugar, and the
amount OF rice imported in 1SS4'S5 was
ll9,014,5E pounds. as against 5I,97o,65
pounds in 1880. These figures show that
the amount has more than doubled in less
than five years.
Both rice and sugar are revenue arti-
cles-that is, the duty upon them goes
into the Treasury. The duties against
which the efforts OF the tariff reformers
have been mainly directed are those
which foster mOnopoies-wAieAs shut out
imports and put nothing into the Treas
ury, but which enable the producers of
the articles upon which thesY pr9hibitory
duties are laid to put enormous profits
into their pockets. III
Who ts there who will say tHut either
the rice or sugar planter is S6nopolist,
or that he reaps enormous PROFITS from
his products? For years both rice and
sugar planters have thought they were
doing pretty well If they met expenses
and made living. The average cost of
producing domestic rice is ~
cents per pound. In this mar
ket last month good rice was quoted
from Al to AZ cents. VIII anybody
say that these prices leave much for the
planterl II Mr.. Morrison's proposed re-
duction were adopted could the rice
planter continue to work his plantation
unless the cost Of producing rice were
greatly reduced in some way?
1t has not been so very long since rice
lands under cultivation in this locality
were worth from 500 to 5000 per acre
Owners of them would now be glad to
get $l5. Indeed it is doubtful it they
could get that much because, unless rice
can be cultivated profitably, they are
practically worthless.
Perhaps the average Congressman
thinks that the rice growing
interest in this country is
very small one, and it is in COM
parison with some other interests, but it
nevertheless furnishes occupation and
living for more than 10000 people.
or course the rice and sugar planters
cannot reasonably ask that their interests
shall be favored above others, but they
have a right to expect that they will be
treated as fairly as others. While the
principle of protection is recognized in
Legislation, they are justified in COM
planning il their interests are ruined
while other interests are sustained as
monopOlies.
The maintenance of these monopolies
makes it impossible for sugar and rice
planters to produce crops at a profit
unless they are accorded a reasonable
amount of protection. These monopolies
make the cost Of everything that the
planters need high, and hence greatly in
crease the cost of the planters produc-
tons.
There is no doubt that the best interests
of the whole country would be served by a
tariff for revenue but as long as we have
protection there must be no discrimina-
tion.lt will not do to sacrifice one interest
in order to strengthen the monopoly
which another enjoys. Rice and sugar
are perhaps nearer a revenue reform
basis than any other articles in the list
of dutiable articles.