St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1911-08-19

perehanee, be excused for having voted for this, that or the other
schedule Of a Republican tariff bill, but, in my opinion, there
Is n excuse for having voted for a Republican tariff bill in its
entlfety; and both of my opponents voted for the Payne tariff
Dill as a whole. They both voted against free lumber, and they
Doth voted against Canadian reciprocity, which carried, as one
u ls nam provisions, the admission of wood pulp free, and
thy Doth voted against placing trustcontroled articles on the
"c list The Democratic platform declares specifically for trust
controlled articles to be placed on the free list, for free wood
pulp and for free lumber, and both of my opponents have
voted against each and every one of these specific declara-
IONS OF the Democratic platform.
In a speech delivered at Natchitoches on July 81, Mr.. Pujo
said:
80 far as I have been able to judge, I know of no difference
on the tariff in the views of Mr.. Broussard and myself
| am very glad, indeed, that he makes the open confession
That there is no difference between himself and Mr.. Broussard
on the tariff, for it will save me the trouble Of shooting them
separately; it will be much easier to shoot them under the
hyphenated combination "Pujo-Broussard.' Mr.. Pujo says
there is no difference on the tariff between himself and Mr..
Broussard, and there seems to be no difference between Mr..
Pujo's declaration and that of the Republican party.
Mr.. Pujo at Ruston said:
in com p G "~ with OF the h 'p produ nof ofsa a like nD3 kind d i" in ts 'r UnHed states
plus transportation and the cost of production here"
The Republican national platform of 1908 says:
.tn tn all IT. tariff If LEGISLATION tedostion t the s true am RFine ip n of 6pa fbe 6ur 4s Dess
reasonable %1nn eI profit of to- to- american Denca Industries nd sms anu A"'A'' N'7''N' "NN
Can you Democrats of Louisiana see any difference, except in
verbage, between Mr.. Pujo at Ruston and the Republican ma
tional platform?
In a speech delivered in the city of Ruston, one of my dis
tinguished opponents, Mr.. Pujo, p~ropounded. several questions
to me, which he implored me to answer. His speech was de-
ivered after mine, and, of course, he knew that | had no oppor-
tunity of answering them at that time. This being the first
speech l have made in the campaign, since the Ruston meeting,
| take great pleasure in answering Mr.. Pujo.
Mr.. Pujo does not seem to be content with the declaration
/ made in Ruston, that 1 was a Democrat, and that l would vote,
as well as sit, on the Democratic side of the Senate, if elected
to that body, and that, if I were in the House, [ would be fol-
lowing the leadership of Mr.. Clark and Mr.. Underwood and not
be consorting with Mr.. Cannon and Mr.. Payne. This state
ment of mine carried a full and complete answer to the ques-
lions raised by Mr.. Pujo, for, if I had followed the leadership
Of Mr.. Underwood in the present House, l would have opposed
putting sugar On the free list; Iswould have opposed putting
rice products on the free list; and would have voted for Cana
dian reciprocity.
The Democratic party has never been a free trade party. Itisa
party that time and time again has declared for a tariff for
revenue. [ am a tarfffor-revenue" Democrat, and have never
been anything else. AS long as my convictions on this subject
remain as they are today, | will never be anything else; and
should l ever become a protectionist, which God forbid, I will
have the courage Of my convictions and come out boldly and
say so.
SUGAR.
I favor a duty on sugar, as it is an ideal revenue producer
to the government, the tariff on sugar having Melted to the
national treasury over fifty million dollars during the year
1910. l favor the retention of the present duty, unless a duty
is imposed which will raise more revenue to the government.
Any duty which will raise more revenue to the government
would, in itself, benefit the sugar cane growers of Louisiana.
RICE.
The problem before the riceproducer Of this country for
many years has been the necessity of increasing the home con-
sumption. 1t is obvious that so long as the production in this
country exceeds the consumption, just so long will the price of
rice be improbable to the producer. The United States De-
partment of Agriculture, for the year 1910, figures the cost of
production of rice at So cents per bushel and the average selling
price at CTS cents, showing the selling price less than the cost
of production, and the utter hopelessness Of getting a profit
able price for rice, unless the quantity produced is kept within
the limit of the quantity consumed.
1t is, therefore, apparent that the only hope for profitable
conditions in domestic rice growing lies in whatever opportunity
there may be for an increase in home consumption. The amount
of rice produced in the United States in 1910 was 1,102, 100000
pounds. The amount consumed, according to the United States
Census Bureau. is 633, 714y03O pounds, showing an over-produc-
ton. or under-consumption, whichever you choose to call it, Of
1859, 225,970 pounds. 1t is, therefore, elementary and obvious, in
as much as we cannot export rice under normal conditions in
competition with foreign rice, that the overproduchon in this
country must be disposed of in this country, and that, under
this condition. the inexorable law of supply and demand fixes the
selling price of rice in the United States. 1t is clear, therefore,
that so long as this condition shall exist, the tariff duties on
n III I4~ar+a --- nh