The Lake Charles echo. [volume] (Lake Charles, Parish of Calcasieu, La.) 1876-1898, 1894-09-21
DUTY Or MUNET-wHIcH2


The men who are trying to create tn
diversion from, we can scarcely say
split IN the democratic party are com
posed Of diverse elements. The princi-
pal representatives from Caloasieu al
their meetings are Prof.. S. a. Knapp and
Doe +. Reed, Of the Press. Both have
been lifelong republicans Of the most
pronounced type Of coarse, al The
disgruntled democrats who have boon
disappointed in their political aspira-
tians win join the ss-called boiters. We
% not propose 30 deny the fact tllat
there arc a few Misguided democrats who
aetnaliy think the sugar interests Of
Louisiana wonld be benefited by the re-
turn to power Of the republican party J.
Never was there a more mistaken idea
IF there is any one thing on which the rel
publican party has staked its whole claim
70 popular favor, it has been free sugar.
Free sugar at the breakfast table has
been the cry. Letevery man, woman and
child have a lump Of sugar il they want
it. There is not man north or south Of
ordinary intelligence that supposes that
the republican party would ever vote for
duty on sugar. On the other hand,
nine-tenths of the democratic party are
in favor of,--not free trade but an inn
port duty. not for projections sake, but
for the purpose of raising a revenue for
the support Of the government To this
end the duty shonld be levied upon the
articles IN general use which must
necessarily be imported, suoh as coffee,
tea, spices and other things the pro
duetion of which our climate forbids.
Sugar is the corner stone of tariff of
this kind. and must necessarily benefit
every sugar cane grower in the state of
Louisiana.
On the otherhand, what have the sugar
planters to expect from their republican
aIiiesi In the absence of an import duty,
the only way in which the sugar inter
ests of Louisiana or any other state could
be subserved would be by the payment
ola bounty which for one brief year
prevailed. We beg pardon for again
stating the reasons that lead the Fepubli
can majority to pass such law, but for
the sake of the argument wemustdo SO.
The repeal of the duty of about ? cents
per pound ON sugar was the death blow
to sugar in tho south, but this was aeees-
sary, as sugar was by far the greater
revenue producing article, bringing to
the treasury about s70,OOO,OOO annually.
The revenue under democratic admin
istratiOn was vastly larger than the ex-
penditures, and the idea was to reduce it, |
and in the place of large balance, to |
have deficit in order that large duties |
might be demanded from articles pro-
duced in the north to swell the revenue. |
Then the brilliant idea of a bounty paid |
to American producers of sugar occurred |
to the mind Of Senator Sherman, which |
should still further deplete the treasury, !
and at the same time, perhaps, split the
democratic party of Louisiana, and turn I
the state over into the republican
column.
There are very few citizens of this
country who are in favor of the payment
of bounty by the government on any
article of American production.
The question is asked why should
sugar receive bounty and not cotton,
and our brothers in the northwest would |
inquire why should we raise corn and
wheat at an actual loss in order that the
cane raisers of Louisiana should make a |
profit
We do not believe that any consider
able number of the democrats of Louis |
lana are willing to turn the state over to
the tender mereies of the republican
party.