Woodruff County news., 1901-04-25
IMPERIALISM AND SUGAR.
ProtectiOnists Who Are Opposed to the Annexation of
 Cuba, and Why.

CuDa, and Way.
 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 that 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 declares:
 l This settles the larger part of our trop- l ical and colonial questions. It prohibits | the annexation of Cuba to the United | States. It bans the abhorrent bargain which the Planters society seeks 10 make | of the exchange of political freedom for 1 commercial monopoly. There will be no re- | auction of 50 per cent. or any per cent of I 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 court that the American tariff extended throughout the length and breadth of any territory subject to the jurisdiction of this govern ment. The fight for a tariff on im- 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 It is, therefore, clear that the tariff ques- tion is going to give us 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 ministe end that of the people of the United States generally, but also that of those for whose benefit we so cheer-
 
 sion between our protected interests and the expansion sentiment may have very interesting consequences.
 One other thought in this conr ec- tion is important. Many people arr que that 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 has small prospect of ever being established. Their theory is that protection should be granted only in cases where a new industry can be "crsated" within a reasonable time. Cn the other hand, we are now told that the manufacture of beet sugar is already "a commercial suc- 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 that an in- dustry may not be established strong | ly enough to resist foreign competi- tion. But the time never comes when the men engaged in protected industry will admit that 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 fer ward with great pleasure to Che i'm pending struggle between tie Me- Kinley protectionists and the Me- Kinley expansionists. Out Of it may come 8 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 mselves.-Indianapo News Qnd.).