The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1897-04-14
CAFFERY AND THE DiNGLEY1
INFAMY.

comm 1clal exchanges Of this city,
following The lead of the Sugar Elk.
e ange, addressed a note to the
Senators and Representatives oi
this State in Congress, urging
them to support tue Dingley bill.
and assuming the extraordinary
position that the bin presents a
purely commercial question. One
ct these remarkable notes was sent
to Senator Don Caffery.
The tariff issue has beensa prom
inent political question in this
country for upwards Of a hundred
years, aud since the war, exclud
ing the force bill, has been tho
great question that has distinctly
constituted the difference between
the Democratic party on the one
hand, and the Republican party
on the other. No body and 10 or
ganization outside of the Sugar
Exchange and the Board of Trade
Of this city has ever yet been quit
t. Of the absurdity OF looking at it
as a purely commercial question.
Certainly the question, as it is pre-.
scented to the country in the iufa.
nous Dingley bill, is not purely a
commercial question, unless II mea-
sure designed, at least calculated,
to restrict revenue and repress in.
ternational trade, is to be denomi
mated Il commercial question:
The one single revenue clause i'll
the whole bill is the sugar sche-
dule and that is linked with a sop
to the Sugar Trust. All the bal
ahce of the bill is framed with the
express purpose of shutting ont
imports, and thus enabling home
manufacturers to rob the masses
OF the people for their own ag.
grandizement.
Nearly every clause OF the Ding.
ley bill was, like the items in the
McKinley bill, written in it or in
corporated in it ut the dictation Of
the domestic manufacturers, who
are to be the beneticiaries Of this
monumental scheme of public rob
berry. If the Sugar Exchange and
the Board of Trade OF New Or
leans are correct in denominating
this s%canlalous bill "a commercial
question:" then people should be.
ware of commerce; they silould
watch their o;kets and tightly
clasp their po%cketbooks when they
enter a commercial establishment,
for under this dictation commerce.
is robbery and oppression and the
boss thief is the Federal govern.
ment aud all tue little thieves are
merchants and manufacturers. IF
the Sugar Exchange and the Board
OF Trade are correct, there is no
evading or denying this inexora-
BILE conclusion. Robbery is TAX.
ing by force from one man to give
to another, and it makes no differ.
ence whether this taking is by an
individual pick pocket, or by the
government through unjust tariff
legislation. The robber barons Of
England and Germany stationed
their armed retainers in the high.
ways to levy toll upon passing
commerce. What difference is
there between the robbers of the
Middle Ages and a robber govern.
ment supported by q navy aud ar
my, with its hosts Of tax collec.
tors. custom houses, appraisers
and other officials, except that the
ancient barlls stole aud robbed
upon a much more limited scale
than does The Federal govern
ments
No less than three decisions Of the
Supreme Court haze Occurred the meth
DDS @prohction to be robbery.
Tree members of the House cleo.
ted from this State as Democrats,
we say it with humiliation and
shame, have been induced to vote
for this damnable bill. But the
exchanges struck q full-sized snag
when they encountered Don CAT
fiery. In this fearless and indomi-
table man they met a lion in their
path. Yesterday We reproduced
from the Times. Democrat the master.
terly answer sent by Mr.. Gallery
to the call upon him to support, in
the interest of a few hundred sn-