The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1896-07-25
Mckinley N SUGAR.

The average sugar planter ia a short
sighted individual when it comes to
matters political. His horizon is CIR
cnmkcrihed by the limits of his sup
posed %pecnuiary advantages. But as
tages lay, lie is often most e%giegiously
mistaken. just now many sugar plan
tiers think their interest lies in the
triumph Of the Republican party and
are engaged in burning incense before
Mckinley. the High Priest Of Protec-
ton. Mckinley came down among
them in 1894. To applaud their change
Of political faith and I" feed them with
'glirt-,ing Sen-'a!iti+s sisnifying
nothing" about The brneticent effects
Of protection. But 'never Il word did
he utter" in favor of sugar in particu-
lar.
. It now transpires that in February
1891, Mr.. William Mckinley, the idol
Of the protectinnist sugar planters,
delivered a speech in Toledo. Ohio,
where there ale no sugar planters, in
winch he expressed himself freely on
the subject of a duty or sugar. We
clip irnm the States the following
paragraph taken from the Toledo
Blade, Il Republican organ
He mckinley was speaking of Mr..
Cleveland, and proceeded in this plain,
u~nmi>takable fashion: The gentle
man (Cleveland) who is now :" insist
cnt for cheap necessari-S of life, while
in office and clothed with authority
was unwilling that sugar, an article of
prime necessity to every household.
should come untaXed to the American
people when it was known it was an
annual burden upon them Of $50 ,00O.-
600. He stood then as the uncompro
missing friend of dear sugar for the
masses"
Not much in favor of a tax on sugar
was Mckinley in 1891, when he needed
not the sugar planters. And his dec
laration Of 1891 is in full accord with
the report OF the majority Of the Ways
and Means Committee, Of which he
was chairman, aud which framed the
tariff bill of 1890, bearing his rame.
Here are the reasons given by Mr..
Mckinley and the other Republicans
on that committee for taking the duty
off sugar and molasses:
"In 1888 the con sumption Of sugar in
the United States was 1,469. 1897 tons,
or 53.1 lbs. per inhabitant. OF this
only 1854 toni (375, 104, 1877 lbs.)
we've produced in the United States.
and 1.1SO.1 1873 tons, or eve eights of
our consumption, were imported. We
have not at hand the statistics of sugar
consumption and production for 1899,
but the relative proportion Of domestic
70 foreign production was Substantial
ly the anne So large IA proportion Of
our sugar is imported that the home
production OF sugar does not material
~ affect the price, and the duty Is
therefore il tax. which is added to the
price not only Of the imported but of
the domestic product.
In 1889 the duties collected on i'm
ported sugar aud molasses amounted
to $55, 975,6 1O. Add to this the in
crease of price OF domestic sugar aris-
ing from the duty, and it is clear that
the duty on sugar and molasses made
the cost of sugar and molasses con
sumed by the people of this country
at least $4,000 900, or about one
dollar for each man, woman and child
in the United States, more than it
would have been if no such duties had
been levied aud the domestic product
had remained the same"
From the point of view of a tariff for
protection per Sc. the reasons assigned
II 1890 against a duty on sugar were
valid and sound. and are just as sound
to-day as they were then.
Mckinley subscribed to them in 1890
aud again in 1891; will he repudiate
them now