National Republican., 1886-12-18
nnlldozInr on the Sugar ousstIon.

Alb OuthtlOns
The New orleans Times Democrat the
organ Of the few hundred sugar planters Of
Louisiana, is endeavoring to raise the Sec
tlonal issue on the question of the repeal Of
the import duty on sugar. It declares that
1t has been suggested purely as political
measure, and because IL is pretended the
Republican vote was dlsfranchlsed in Lou
isianau
OF course this is untrue, but II the Times
Democrat wants to "wave the bloody shirt"
on the tariff question, we see no way to
prevent It's so doing, but we do not propose
TO be drawn aside from the true issue into
partisan and sectional discussion when the
repeal Of the tax-for It is tax-levled on
sugar is a national question, entering into
every household in the land.
The Times-Dcmocrdt sets up its man Of
straw, and then throws stones at II in
the following manner;
The Republican protectionists are abandon
ing the true principles Of protection, aud as.
suring their own ruin, ifthey attempt to make
the tariff partisan or sectional, as Sherman,
Van Wyck, and Morrill, propose.
Secretary Manning best answers this as
sertion OF the Times Democrat with the
argument used by all believers In "a tariff
for revenue only" when he says "our own
sugar crop is so very small part OF the
total amount OF sugar we consume that
sugar ranks next to articles wholly pro-
duced abroad, like tea and coffee in suitabH-
ayfor tdration.
Mr.. Manning says truly, in these words,
| that the duty on sugar is a revenue and
not protective duty. 1t is tax on the
consumers and nothing else, because after
years Of protection offered by this duty
there is no corresponding and proper in
crease in the home production.
"The Republican protectlonlsts" are
standing by "the true principles Of protec-
tion" when they propose to abolish and do
away with q duty which, after years OF
trial, has not and in the nature Of things
cannot produce the result desired; that is,
the home production Of one Of the neces-
saries Of life.
The protective policy OF the Republican
party has resulted in twenty years in build
Ing up hundreds Of industries, providing
profitable employment for millions OF peo-
pie, making the country independent aud
self.sustaining, so far as many OF the in
dispensables OF life and defense are con-
cerned, giving to American workingmen
and women the highest wages paid in the
world, and in making all the neeessaries Of
life, not farm products, cheaper by from
10 to 80 per cent. than they were under
Democratic free trade, while 1t has in
"a bn go 70 IA,
viding home market for them,
II is this proud record that now enables
''the Republican protectionlsts" to say to
the Louisiana sugar planters: "For twenty
years we have given you protection ranging
from seventy to ninety per cent. ad valorem
on your sugar. To-day you come no nearer
supplying the home market than you did
when we began this protection. A thou
sand million dollars has been paid into the
treasury by the people as q tax on sugar,
and you have benefited by this tax about
one hundred million dollars, because you
have produced about onetenth Of the
amount of sugar consumed, but you have
not used this enormous sum, taken from the
people and given to you, in developing an in
creased sugar culture. The government nc
longer needs the money produced by this
tax, and you have failed or refused to profit
! i-.-s1~ ~--i-4-- M ----s ---, a. = ------v'
create nor foster home production, we will
remove the duty and give all the people the
benefit of buying sugar in the cheapest
market.n
The Times Democrat, the organ Of the
sugar planters, may threaten the sectiona
issue, may wave the bloody shirt, but &
cannot make the south solid on this issue
not even Louisiana nor its congressman
when It is every ones interest, outside OF
frontier parishes in Louisiana to have cheap
sugar, nor can 1t frighten the north. The
effort to do that in 1861 resulted badly.
The effort is failure on the part Of the
Times. Democrat to show inconsistency
upon the part OF the Republican leaders
like Sherman, Morrill,, Dawes, Platt, and
others, who advocate the removal of thC
duty on sugar. 1t is just the class Of taxa
tion that consistent protectionists can aud
should remove. Secretary Manning say
that much when he classes the sugar tal
with that on coffee and tea, which Repub
lican protectionists removed some year
ago, because it was an unequal tax bearing
hardly on the poor.