Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1901-04-25
SUGAR AND IMPERIALISM.
to the Annexation Of
Cuba, and Why.

There seem to be some powerful
influences at work against the threat
ened annexation of Cuba-and they
are influences with which we are all
familiar. The New York Press, which
holds the record as the most passion
ate protectionist publication in this
country, if not in the world, express
es the opinion hat the annexation
of Cuba would be fatal to our pro-
tected sugar interests. Commenting
on a statement in a census bulletin
that "beet sugar manufacture is a
commercial success in the United
States" the Press d~eclares:
This settles the larger part of our trop-
zeal and colonial questions. 1t prohibits
the annexation of Cuba to the United
States. 1t bans the abhorrent bargain
which the Planters society seeks to make
of the exchange of political freedom for
commercial monopoly. There will be no re-
auction or 90 per cent: or any per cent. OF
the United States tariff on the chief Cuban
products"
We can think of nothing that
would do more to check the expan-
sion movement than a decision of the
supreme N hat the American
tariff extended throughout the length
uAo eau oL lily JIG
to the jurisdiction of this govern
ment. The fight for a tariff on inn
ports into this country from Porto
Rico was made by men interested in
sugar and tobacco, who feared, not
merely free trade with Porto Rico,
but the probability of free trade
with the Philippines. And if these
gentlemen find that we cannot hold
territory and at the same time MAIN
tain discriminating tariffs against
the people occupying that territory,
they will promptly join forces with
the Boston anti-imperialists. 1t is,
therefore, clear that the tariff ques-
ton is going to give us a good deal
of trouble in the work of carrying
our civilizing influence around the
world. We shall have to consider, not
simply the welfare of the people to
whom we propose to minister, and
that of the people of the United
States generally, but also that of
those for whose benefit we so cheer
fully tax ourselves. Thus the COLI
sion between our protected interests
and the expansion sentiment nay
have very interesting consequences.
One other thought in this connec-
ton is important. Many people ar
que hat it is not worth while to dis
criminate in favor of the beet sugar
interest because it is so insignificant.
They hold that it is not established
and that it a small prospect of ever
being established. Their theory is
that protection should be granted
only in cases where a new industry
can be created" within a reasonable
time. On the other hand, we are now
told that the manufacture of beet.
sugar is already "a commercial sue
cess in the United States" And from
this the conclusion is drawn that we
must protect it. OF course, we UNDER
stand that the theory is hat an in
dustry may not be established strong
ly enough to resist foreign competi-
ton. But the time never
when the men engaged in a protected
industry will admit hat it is estab-
lished beyond the need Of further
fostering care. In the present case
we have it argued that the beet sugar
industry ought not to be protected
because it is not established, and
that it ought to be protected because
it is established! We shall look for
ward with great pleasure to the i'm
pending struggle between the Nc
Kinley protectionists and the Nc
Kinley e~xpansionists. Out of it may
come a more rational tariff system in
this country, and a wise withdrawal
from the attempt to govern distant
peoples who ought, as far as we are
concerned, to be allowed to govern
NewsUnd.).