The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-06-07

man of common sense would care TO
hear concerning the tariff Mr. Aldrich
had read the following telegram from
David S. Ferris. secretary Of the Sugar
Planters Convention Of Louisiana:
'Lamscoe, La, June 4, 1894.
Hon. n. w. Aldrich:
The great majority of sugar planters
of this State favor the bounty or demand
its equivalent as the present schedule
means ruin. The sugar convention never
passed any resolutions endorsing the acts
present stand. We simply appreciated
their services, but approve the stand
of Congressman Price, Davey, Robertson,
and Meyer on their vote against free
sugar and in favor of bounty. Refer you
to published proceedings Of convention.
| authorize you TO use this telegram If
you wish. DAVID S. FERRIS"
Now let us see just what this de
mand" means. The sugar planters of
Louisiana say they must have the pres
ent bounty of two cents a pound on all
sugar raised by them. or tariff tax
on sugar that will raise the price of
all foreign sugar TO the American house
keeper to point that will enable them
to raise sugar at that profit.
Let us analyze this a little further.
They say on the one hand, that without
such a tax they must be paid a bounty
Of two cents a pound on what they raise,
or else they will have to abandon sugar
raising and go to some other business.
In other words, if the American people
are minded TO have cheap sugar a few
thousand Louisianians must be paid out
OF the UNITED States Treasury some
$4,000 900 per annum, otherwise they Will
quit raising sugar. Are the rest OF us so
interested in these few thousand Louis
ianians that we are prepared either 10
pay dear for our sugar or 10 make them
a present of $l50OO,0OO a year? We like
the Louisianians-we have the very high
est respect and regard for them-but we
cannot see that We are under any obli-
CATION to do either of these things. 1t is
our right TO have cheap sugar. and we
are not under any obligation TO support
these planters. If their lands will not
produce sugar prohtably. they must Gull
tivate something else or move to other
quarters. These Louisianians are making
a demand for a clear gift Of Sl5,OOO0OO per
annum. If they are entitled 10 this gift
all other Americans are entitled to pro-
portional gifts. and there won't be enough
TO so round at that rate.
But observe for a moment the terms
Oh which they will compromise with us
If they let us off with that $i5, 100000 per
annum. Mr.. Ferris says that If they can
get no more than the present bill offers
them they will be ruined and. of course,
therefore, he demands great increase on
it. The present bill imposes forty per
cent ad yalorem and one-eghth of a cent
a pound. This means that our sugar Will
cost us on the breakfast table something
like two cents pound more than il
would cost us If there were no tariff
But these gentlemen tell us we must pay
still more for our breakfast sugar or they
will be ruined
However much we may lament such
a misfortune 10 our Louisiana friends.
we tell them that for one we will not con-
sent to do any more. II the Incidental"
protection which they will get from this
tax fails to keep them going. they will
have to go under.
But what a lesson In Protection" this
case is. The Louisiana planter comes out
boldly and admits that he cannot sup
port himself. but must be supported by
his Government, and he appeals to the
principle of Protection" as the device
by which he is TO be supported under
the pretence that something else is being
done The confession of the candid Louis
ianian ought TO open the eyes of all
other Americans to what Protection" is
doing to them. The Carnegies and the
Woonsockets and the what-nots are liv-
ing on their fellow-Americans under the
Protection" device just as effectually
as the Louisiana sugar planter. only they
have not his candor in admitting It,
How long will the American people per-
NIT a few political bosses in the Senate.
like German, Brice, etc. to force their
necks under a yoke like this?
May Virginia never havo "a German
in the Senate"