The Washington times., 1913-04-19
FREE SUGAR BETRAYALS.

The New York World is a good Democrat, a
strong tariff reformer and loyal supporter of Presi-
dent Wilson Like. nearly all other Democrats, the
World mad contended in season and out for free
sugar. When a generation ago the Democratic
party in control of the Government left sugar highly
protected, the World, we recall it, outraged by
that betrayal of Democratic principles, powerfully de-
nounced those who guilty of the betrayal.
In its devotion to free sugar as fundamental
principle and solemn pledge of the Democratic party
the World now scornfully chides the Democrats Of
Louisiana for being hand in glove with the sugar
ring" declaring that there is a fierce Democracy
in Louisiana, but it makes common cause with any
body, Republicans preferred, who will do something
TO help sugar"
But why confne this bitter indignation against
Democratic treason to merely the Democrats of
Louisiana? If the Democrats of that State we're
pledged, by the solemn obligations of their party,
to free sugar, surely they were no more strongly
pledged than the Democrats of all the rest of the
country.
But the Democratic majority in Congress and tine
Democratic authority in the White House are not
now giving, and are not now proposing free sugar
for American consumers They don't offer to give
it this year. They don't offer to give it next year.
They don't offer to give the year after next. They
say they are going to give the American consumers
free sugar in three years.
But that is not what they we're pIedging them
selves to do through all the years preceding their
capture of the United States Government. They
were pledging themselves to give American CONSUME
ers free sugar forthwith, when they gave free other
things Now they talk about three years! But if the
Democratic authority in Washington representing the
whole Democratic party in the United States, can
without sin put off free sugar year, two years,
three years, the sugar Democrats of Louisiana really
do not seem to be so desperately wicked when they
ask, "lf three-year postponement of free sugar,
why not fve-year postponement? Why not an in
definite postponement?"
IL it is not political and moral sin for the
Democratic Government to put off the execution of
the sugar industry of Louisiana for three years, it,
does not seem to be much more of an iniquity for
the Democrats of Louisiana to suggest that that re-
prieve be extended beyond three years.
There is no time limitation to bad morals. Nor
do good morals become outlawed. If it is poor
morality to break promise for three years, it ought
not to be much break it, say for three years
and three minutes. If il is bad morals to have a
duty sugar three minutes after three years from
now, it might to the fair-minded critic that is
just bad morals to have tariff on sugar three
minutes before three years from
Either protective tariff sugar is right or is
wrong. The Democratic party has always maintain
ed that the sugar duty is absolutely wrong
Either the Democratic party is bound, by its high
est obligations, to make sugar Free it is not But
ii has never denied that it is so bound by its own
pledges. Only the Democratic control of the Gov
ernment now declares that those pledges don't go"
for three years, while the Democrats of Louisiana
protest, if not for three years, why at any time?
We submit that so far as logic goes, the Demo-