The Florida agriculturist. [volume] (DeLand, Fla.) 1878-1911, 1889-01-16
For THE FLORIDA AGR1cU1TuRIsr.
Tariff on Oranges.

contains an article taken from the South
ern Sun, which should like to notice 1t
thinks your correspondent Dudley w.
Adams is Inconsistent and absurd in
the communication which is referred to,
and that such action on the part of the
Congressional Committee as he depicts
would be the policy of retaliation and
revenge"
Now the first question is, Did the peo-
pie of this State in the last election vote
in condemnation of the policy of protec-
ton? think you will have to answer,
"They did very emphatically." Thenext
question | would present is, Can it be
considered retaliatory to give them the
kind OF legislation they approve? Ii they
want protection why did they vote
against it? We might consistently press
our little protective scheme, if our ballots
had supported the principle of protection,
but a supporter of Cleveland and Thur
man ought to hang his head in shame at
the thought of it. Now, Mr.. Editor, do
not you think it is the height of childish
inconsistency to vote one way and clamor
for the opposite? If | had voted to elect
those men who argue that protection is
not only taxation but robbery to five
times the extent of the taxes, | would try
and be man In the matter, and not
whine that | wanted to be placed on the
rObber list. The Southern Sun saws, eff
Pennsylvania has a concession in favor
OF her ire on, it is therefore but right that
Florida should have the same for her or
anges-it is question that has moth
ing to do with her vote" If [ were one
of the Congressional Committee, and a
Democrat Representative from this dis
trict came before me for the purpose of
getting the tariff raised on oranges, [
would say, Certainly, we will put it up
fair on oranges according to the best
light we can get, if you will support the
protective features agreed upon for other
Industries in other parts of the country"
Ii he said, "No am opposed to prOtec-
ton on principle, but just want some OF
IL Tor my immediate constituents"
would answer 'YOur constituents can go
without till they believe in doing by
others as they would like to be doneby"
The idea that a Democratic ''ta1iff for
revenue only" "would embrace a much
higher tariff on oranges than is now lev
led, will not bear criticism A tariff for
revenue only would be made to bear as
much as possible on articles not produced
III this country, or produced here to
very limited extent, and on other articles
on which it is levied, it would not aim to
prohibit or restrict trade, but only to
gather custom. If it was determined
that the revenue collected from oranges
could be safely dispensed with, instead of
raising the rates, they would be placed
on the free list Immediately. But this
effort to get oranges protected is eX-
tremely fattering. 1t shows that free
trade dogmas cannot thrive in this State
that the people voted for them only
through party fealty and under thepart
lash, and from the narrow sectiOnalism
which the editor of the Southern Sun feels,
but objects to as a Northern attribute or
sentiment. Suppose Robert Bullock
should go before the Congressional Com
mlttee with request to have our orange
industry further protected, and should
be met as have Indicated, does anyone
doubt the course he would take? Would
he not say, Gentlemen, am not sec
tional man; am willing to accord to the
North the same consideration crave for
my own State; | am a protectionistfrom
principle, and will vote to protectAmer-
lean industry everywhere, if | am read out
of the party for it !" He would well un-
derstand that was the only course he
could afford to take-that if the Demo
crafts of his district did not applaud but
turned q cold shoulder, the other side
would take him up, and there would be
such q stampede to it as would make him
more popular than ever. The American
bird has not only won in the country but
she has won a great point in the South.
The rosuIt will no such g. fratprniZpr