The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1896-09-19
SUGARdNU I'll T.4hIFF.

Jl this section Of the state, the tariff
has always Interested our people more
particularly in its relation 10 sugar
Sugar being q principal industry, i,
is but natural that such should he the
case. All are concerned ia The welfare
of the industry ; all concede that j,
should receive some Of the fav0rs oil
the government tile only point OF
difference is Al to the best method,
the most equitable way, Of securing
those favors.
The Democrats claim that the most
equitable way, the best method, to
obtain for sugar the governmental
favor or protection to which we are
all agreed that it is entitled, is under
the system of indirect taxation known
as a tariff for revenue with incidental
protection.
They show that sugar is an ideal
revenue producer and that any duty
placed upon it brings ample revenue
into the federal treasury, and at the
same time affords a just measure of
protection to the domestic producers.
They demonstrate that while 4 duty
on sugar is a tax upon. the consumers,
as the Republicans contend, yet it is a
just and equitable tax, because it goes
into the treasury principally, to meet
the just expenditures of the govern
ment-the only object for which a tax
may be levied without violating the
fundamental principles Of American
institutions. Having shown all this,
they appeal to the facts Of history
which prove that the Democratic par
ty has always maintained the econom-
ic doctrine of a tariff for revenue with
incidental protection, distributed in a
spirit of equity and compromise be-
tween the great interests Of agriculture
manufacture and commerce, and under
that system of taxation a duty has al
ways been levied on sugar from the
passage of the first tariff law down to
1890, when it was taken off by the Re-
publicans, because sugar was not en-
titled to it under their system of a
tariff for protection.
History proves more; it proves that
after a crusade of years made by the
Republicans in favor Of FREE SUGAR !;
after the American people bad been
given free sugar by the Republican
party. and tasted and enjoyed the
benefit of the ''free breakfast taole" of
that party, the Democratic party, true
to its principles and traditions, had
the moral courage to put back a duty
on sugar, to restore it to its former
position in the tariff legislation, and
thereby take away from the people
their free breakfast table," of which
Republicans had made so much.
The Democrats point out that their
platform adopted ut Chicago reiterates
the old Democratic tariff doctrine, and
declares that the duties should be $50
adjusted as to operate equally through
out the country and not discriminate
between class or section," and they
declare that, Judging the future by the
experience of the past and the light Of
the present, the sugar interest is safe
in the hands Of the Democratic party.
They contend that under the Demo-
cratic doctrine we can demand, on
sound and just principles, the proper
recognition of the rights Of sugar and
there is every reason to hope, that in
the future as in the past. those rights
will be respected by that party.
The Republicans-the local Repub-
licans, We mean-contend that it is
best to tie sugar to the cal, of high
protection aud to range ourselves un.
der the banner of that party whose
maia economic principle is that II ma
ton may be made ffch and powerful
by taxation. W. doubt not the sim
certify and honesty Of purpose Of most
OF our Republican friends: they hon
believe what they advocate; but
we are just as honest in our convic-
ton that our friends are egregiously /:
We have in the past analyzed the
protection theory and shown its falla- /
cy and injustice. We have shown
that it violates some Of fundamental
principles Of free government. Nay
mole, we have s.,swn by the testimony