The sea coast echo. [volume] (Bay Saint Louis, Miss.) 1892-current, 1896-08-29


"The Echo itself wishes for more.
1t is unmistable in favor of tariff
for revenue only, and in deadly
hostility to every form of protec--
ton.
The republican idea of protection
which has incurred the solid op-
position of the democracy, is tariff
for protection, with incidental
revenue, or with no revenue at all e.,
as for instance sugar under the
Mckinley law, the want of tariff
protection being compensated by
the expedient of bounty.
"The republican protection is
iniquitous in every way. 1t is par
tial class legislation, and has no
bowels of compassion for the
plain people. 1t does not protect
the rice, lumber, coal and sugar
interests of the poor South,
because the wealthy North desires
"free raw materials'-a vicious
republican invention'wholly in the
interest of rich and overfostered
manufactures.
"Now the true democratic doc
trine of tariff is neither the repub-
lican idea G6aPfotoction nor the
=. - > .no ,sas,ssssg''S'"". ,sgass;, .
"The three first and greatest
democratic presidents, who ruled
the country gloriousIy for twenty
four years, never went to either
extreme, although the greatest of
them, jefferson, was so strongly in
favor of protection that he came
near disregarding the golden
mean. They ever regarded revenue
and protection as diverse and
reverse of an indivisible polity.
They never considered either as
pect without essential reference
to the inseperable other. This
position has been maintained by
their democratic successors, with
two important exceptions, both
under the influence of the Golden
school-;-Polk and Cleveland.
"Under the democratic doc
trine, sugar, rice, salt, coal and
lumber are ideal subjects of tariff,
because the levying of duty on
them protects American produc-
ton.
"The democratic party has
always protected sugar, and al
ways will, becauset,it acts on
principle, and not systematically.
Consequently the Times-Demo-
crat believes that the sugar plan
ters will come heelsb,o the demo-
cretic p9 here is no hope
whateN that the republicans
will protect them - and their
demand for protection is not
unreasonable. 1t will bring them
back.
"The Echo says:
"The Louisiana sugar republicans ex.
| pect little too much from the repnbli-
can partv. They should know that that
party has meyer expressed any desire to
protect their industry, and, furthermore,
we do not believe that 1t would, however
much 1t cared to do so.
sugar Is distinctly different from the
other American products which come
| under republican protection. Those com.
modltles which 1t protects are, or can be,
raised In sufilciency to satisfy home con.
sumption; but that Is not the case with
sugar. The American output Is scarce
worth considering, and may not be for
many years to come, il ever, and to lew q
tax upon this most extensively used cCSn-
modify tU protect this pigwidgeo indHs
try at the expense of $4,000, 900 Ct people
is an unspeakable infamy.
''The republican party may attempt
many things, but there are two things il
would scarcely undertake; viz. give a
bounty to any special producer or manu-.
facturer, or protect commodity which
the United States is unable to supply.
$50 the self-constituted branch of the
Louisiana republicans may scale the
mountain top and shout their religion
| from morning till night, but the echo
OF their wailing cry will be their only
answer. From the yoiceless throat OF re-
publican protection Will come no answer
| "The proYerbial greed and ayarlce OF
the republican party is put to blush By
the demand of our sugar growers OF
Louisiana"
"The Echo is mislead by the
extravaganza of its faith in free
trade. 1t is doubtless incapable
of exercising its usually broad
Judgment. 1t seems incredible
that capable writer on public
topics should so decry so import
ant an American industry as the
production of sugar. And if q
tariff on sugar is to be described
as "an unspeakable infamy," the
things political which are truly
Infamous will have to remain un-
described, because language has
been exhausted.
moreover, in Louisiana people
do not scale mountain tops and
shout. We are plain people and
we have no mountains" !"
In decrying protection we simply
adhere to the democratic revenue tar.
If policy, and we reiterate that sugar
should not be protected, il protection
means what we think it does. To
lProtect an industry is to either ex-
clude foreign competition or to raise
the price of its product to such a de-
gree as to practically put it out Of