OCR Text |
Show SUGAR- PLANTERS' DILEMMA. Tho sugar planters of Louisiana have had a delegation before tho House Investigating In-vestigating Committee, protesting against a. reduction in the sugar tariff. Tho President of the Louisiana Planters' Plant-ers' Association, in his testimony, gave it as his opinion that a reduction of the sugar tariff would ruin the Louisiana Louis-iana sugar industry. He predicts n crop of one million tons of sugar a year in Louisiana and Texas within a few years, but if the sugar tariff be cut in half, the sugar industry of Louisiana would be annihilated, and tho prosperity prosper-ity of more than .two million pcoplo would be seriously affected. In the same direction of pessimistic opinion, u former for-mer State Chemist of Louisiana testified testi-fied that that State had ten million acres of Innd that could be made sugar-bearing sugar-bearing Jaud if capital could be found to enter the State, but capital will not undertake to venture for fear that the tariff on sugar may be disturbed. But who is it that is threatening to disturb the tariff on sugar? Clearly, the Democratic politicians and the Democratic members of Congress. But the Louisiana planters seem able to control con-trol the votes of the Senators of Louisiana, Louis-iana, and tho same and other interests control the votes of Senators of Texas for protection at critical points whenever when-ever the tariff question is up for consideration. con-sideration. The Senators, however, from both States are Democratic. The Democratic, party is the party that threatens the sugar duty, but the interests inter-ests involved arc desparntely opposed to any reduction in that duty. Why, thou, should the politicians, tho Senators, Sena-tors, and the Representatives from Louisiana and Texas be Democrats? Why not come out for the party of protection pro-tection if they arc protectionists? But they are protectionists, as is seen by tho keen rally which they make whenever -the sugar duty is threatened. Their only consistent course, therefore, is to quit the Democratic party, which is tho anti-protection party, and join the Republican party, which is the parly that holds by the protective prin ciple. If tho Louisiana sugar planters aro not williug to do this, then the legitimate le-gitimate situation is that they must bear tho consequoncos of their own divided di-vided allegiance. They can hardly expect ex-pect that tho Senators from the North, who havo no particular interest in Louisiaun, will protect tho Louisiana planters against the tendencies nnd determinations de-terminations of their own party and their own Congressmen. As long as those planters remaiu Democrats they should take tho consequences of their Dcmoerac'. |