The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1888-06-07
The Way to Reduce the Revenues.

There is II better way than thst propos-
ed in the Mills bill to reduce the revenues
and prevent the continual accumulation Of
surplus in the Treasury. We are now
paying duties amounting to sos 600 600
annually upon imported sugar | intro
dneed early in the session bill to repeal
this sugar DUTY, and to pay bounty T.
quai To The present duty upon sugar in tire
country. The bounty would amount to
not more than S60O, 1000, 900; so that Sj2-
100000 of taxes would be saved to the
people and tine surplus reduced to the
extent of S64.000,000. This would de
stroy no American industry 1t would
leave sugar protected just as it is now
and be sure to reduce the surplus, some
thing that the Mills bill will not do, be
cause it is very certain to increase the
revenues by increasing impprtations a.
much as it Curtails them by its free list.
But you fear the word "bounty Then,
let US reGuce the sugar duty to S. 600, 900
per year and let that sum, or rs much Of
1t as may be necessary, be paid to the
American sugar planters to equal the rate
OF duty upon the sugar they produce.
This Will be az much Il duty rs if we
collected the S5s 600 600 which we do
nov. 1t will remedy all the trouble
about the surplus, and harm no one. In
deed 1t Will do more to stimulate expert
ments in making sugar from sorghum and
Deets as well 10 from cane than IA duty as
now imposed. The sugar interests Of
France, Germany, and Italy have been
developed by direct bountiCs, and several
States of our Country have resorted to
this method with good results and no
harm done to anyone. This policy would
a1a 81
efforts of our people to invent new pro
ccsses of manufacture as well as to try
new materials for the production Of
sugar.
And this plan would not be sectional in
its effects. Sugar is consumed equally in
all parts of our country. 1t is an article
of prime necessity in every State and
town in the land, and it equally affects all
classes. Tne use of sugar is confined to
neither poor nor rich, nor workman nor
employer. 1t is the largest food charge
in every family, and there is no article of
consumption the cheapcning of whose
cost would be SO generally and Sensihly
felt. The reduction of the duty would
be very large, the present tariff being 7G
per cent, and therefore be greater say
ing to the people than could be made upon
anything else. Indeed, it would carry
more comfort to more American homes
than any change in our revenue laws
which can be made. And this plan would
be entirely in line with the protective
principle. The industry is to be protected
1t is not proposed to protect it by high
duty, because the prime object of pro
tcctive duty, namely, the growth and
expansion of the industry protected and
the competition arising therefrom, can
not, at present at least, be secured in the
case of sugar. The sugar growing ter
ritory of our country is limited and we
produce no more sugar than we did thirty
years ago. The bounty will stimulate the
eXperimenter and inventor and when we
shall have found the process of producing
an unlimited amount of sugar in our
country at fair cost, the duty may be
repealed if it shall then be found desir-
able to have it done. The repeal of the
sugar duty and protection of the sugar
industry at the same time in the manner
which have stated, is American in its
policy. 1t does not sacrifice any industry
to the foreigner, nor any one industry to
any other industry or interest in our
country $. l.. M3iikcH'S Speceh.