Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1909-01-13

and the figures clearly show the amount
contributed by, the people for the. nurs.
Ing ofethe infant sugar Industry ia at
u, that we might produce every fifth
pound consumed at home, we pay taxes
OF $50 GOO a year If 1t is good
policy to pay $90,OO0O 600 more for the
sugar we use than the sugar is worth
that we may produce one pound in five,
why would 1t not be better policy to
pay 100000 year and, produce
one pound in every two and one half,
or $3.50, co., 600 a year and produce one
pound IN one and one-quarter, or even
more, and produce 1t all at home?
in the protectionists idea Of tariff
suff1ciency there Is point of pre-emi-
nence where sugar alone could be made
to produce enough revenue to pay all
the expenses of government and stimu-
late home production to the point Of
meeting the entire demand for sugar.
What is the use of stopping at any
point short Of perfection? Exchange.
Tho Presidents Pulitzer MIessnge.
The indianapolis News, discussing
the question, when is a message not
message" answers that 1t is when
the President does not give Congress
information of the state Of the IN
hon. nor recommend to Its considera-
ton measures which he shall deem nee
essary and expedient.
Under this definition the Pulitzer
message was not message at all, but
private communication from public
officer. It did not recommend legisla-
ton. It recommended that Mr.. Pulit-
Ger be prosecuted for libel by the gov
ernment, but 1t is not the province Of
+ Congress to prosecute for libel. It did
not recommend that Congress pass a
libel law to cover similar cases in the
future. The President seems to have
assumed that the law he needed al
ready exists. The communication did
not recommend that Congress make
searching investigation of the purchase
Of the Panama Canal concession. On
the other hand, 1t intimated that there
was nothing to investigate, and broadly
suggested that Mr.. Pulitzer should be
put In jail for intimating that there
was. ~
+ Apparently, instead of having been
addressed to Congress, the Pulitzer mes.
sage should have been addressed to
'tMy Dear Foulke. Minneapolis Jour
nal.
I Investigating the Panama Deal.
No matter whom 1t may help or hurt,
the Republican majority in the House
Of Representatives cannot afford to re-
5ect the resolution, offered by Mr..
Rainey, Of Illinois, for an inquiry into
the methods by which we acquired the
property Of the. old French Panama
Canal Company.
We must go on, without interruption,
digging that canal 1t would be la-
mentable misfortune If public conf
dence that the work is carried on hon
estly and efficiently should be shaken.
This confidence can be confirmed only
by full publicity Of every step Of its
progress from the inception of the en-
terprise.
The French inquiry into the failure
Of the French company under the adj
ministration of De Lesseps went far to
reveal that the failure was, in part at
least, due to sinister influences in this
country. There was much evidence to
show that the old company was heavily
blackmailed by persons in this country
who Claimed that the canal could not
be built without their help.S
II the remnants Of that company
were mulcted by interests or combina-
lions who got most of the $4,000, 900
E which we paid for the property. the