, 1888-01-18

OiOH VI anu HUI ldIIOIdI CAODohSO
are pure evil, and that the statesman's aim
should be, except under the dire necessity
of raising revenue, to let trade alone. The
manner in which IL nation like Austria
can slide into the intOlerable position Of
giving away more in boun ties than she
raises 10y the Sugar-tAX may we'll be quot
eel Ill this context. The steps are simple
enough when the first has been taken. A
tax, for ordinary fiscal reasons, is imposed
on sugar. This tax it is found convenient
TO levy on the beetrOOt before it is refined,
instead OF on the actual sugar. The raw
beetrOOt is thus taxed at so much per
ton. The r%efnerS, however, want to ex-
port some Of their sugar whenrefiued. Ac-
CordlnglY, a drawback is given on sugar
taken out of the country,-that is, the
money paid as Il tax on the beetrOot which
was made ictO the sugar is refunded. Now
in order to say how much they are to re-
fund, the EXChrquer must calculate how
many tons OF berlroot went to a tom of
sugar. 1t is soon suggested that, in order
TO stimulate the sugar industry and to en-
courage trade, this calculation may be
made on a liberal Scale,-that is, thar the
man who is going to be patriotic enough
TO export homemade sugar shall he ell
cOura9ed by getting back quite as much,
or a little more, than he paiG as the tax on
the beet root. The ratio, then. is fixed in
such a liberal spirit that it, in effect,
puts a small premium on the export OF
sugar. 1t happens however, that new
discoveries are made in SugarrP6ning
which enable the rtfiner tot get double the
amount OF sugar he used to get out OF the
Samp quantity of beptrOot. The tax. how
ever, remainS the same. When, therefore,
he brings u ton of sugar for export and
claims, I h., ,,f,,Alir LF tI, t"l L., sr,t, -
drawback calculated on double the mount
OF beetroot really used by him and Oh
which he has paid the tax. OF course,
such an arrangement makes d rush to man
ufacturr sugar, and the exports Of sugar
rise more and more ~rapidlyeVcry year, and
the sum required for the bounty drawback
with them. This, speaking generally, IL
J0St what has happened. The bou mites ln
the ndtureO Of drawbacks, which were meant
at FIRST rs nothing more than slight en-
engagements to the sugar industries, have
gradually slid into great financial burdens
which every year more and more emf ar
raSS the EXCleqUerS OF the bounty giving
States. We wonder it in Germany or III
Austria, any advocate Of the bounty SyS-
tenn were to sit down and add up the
amount that in either country bad been
expended in producing the sugar indus,
'llVS1 nc COihl hollVNtIA SAY llldL the llOHtS
had been well or judIciouSly spent. Per
haps the sum total might begin TO make
HIM speculate whether, after all, State i'll
reference in tladt was really beneficial.
The near approach Of he a. oIilion OF the
sugar bOmtieS has given rise to some curl
ously mistaken tIlcoriSing on the effect Of
the bountieS in England. England it has
been argued, benefits 10y the bOuntirs, and
so ought not to attempt to get them ahol-
iShed; to do 50 is not to act in accordance
with the principles of Frpt-trAdr. AS We
pointed out iaSt week, no proposition could
be more ridiculous. 70 argue so is to miss
one OF he mos important principles OF
free exchange. Everything which ~ininreH
a country with which we have Commercial
intercourse Injuries us. Since wealth is
the result 0f Exchange, the more beneficial
the exchange The greater the wealth. II u
Ouulry unier d Wa~te:ul system nf hnun-
ties is made to produce Things which il
produces i'll, we who trade or exchange
commodities with that country, obtain ~
less amount of benefit by the process. In
truth. the material Interests Of different
countries can no more be separated than
can the material interests of the different
cities of England, or of the different inla~
bitautS OF those cities. Thus, since hnun-
ties impOveri>h the countries that adopt
them, England cannot tail to share in the
imnOVAriSLmnnt while thn bOuntipS are