Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-01-18
NATIONAL LEGISLATION.
Animated Discussion on the
Duty on Sugar.
PROTECTION BY BOUNTIES.
The Admission of the Territories
Occupies Most of the Attention
of the House.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD.


plate tariff amendment. 1t was not so
much a matter of protection to tin as of
the iron and steel plate industry. OF
2S3, 900 tons of tin plate annually i'm
ported, fully 275,O0O tons consisted OF
iron and steel, the remaining 5000 tons
only being tin.
Allison said the present duty is about
33 per cent. The proposed duty is
about 70 per cent. The debate was
further continued by Platt, Salisbury,
Plumb, German, Aldrich, Mitchell and
Call. Finally the amendment was
adopted, yeas 25, nays IS Brown voting
aye). 1t fixes the duty on tin plate
(taggers' iron or steel) when valued at
8 cents pound or less, thinner than No.
10 and not thinner than No. 20 wire
gauge, at cent per pound; on thinner
plates at 1-10, 1 $40 and ] 4-1O per
pound, and on corrugated or crimped
plates 4.1O cents per pound. ALI
other iron or steel sheets, plates and
hoops, excepting tin plates when galva-
nized or coated with zinc, spelter or other
metal, "a cents pound addit iopal, and
after January l, 1898, tin plate q cents
a pound additional.
The amendment proposing bounty on
sugar from beets, sorghum or sugar cane
grown in the United States was then
taken up.
Vest declared his opposition to all such
bounties, which he considered the most
objectional form of protection. The idea
of the Government going into partner
ship with any individual or set of indi-
viduals in order to give them peculiar
advantages at the expense OF the people
was relic of absolute tyranny, and ut
terly opposed to all free popular govern
ment.
Allison, in reply to a question of
Eustis, who asked why a bounty was
proposed, said the object was to induce
the production of sugar in this country
from beets, sorghum and from sugar
cane. Eustis asked Allison to state
whether the proposed bounty of one cent
a pound on sugar produced in this
country was not in direct contradiction
of the ground taken by the Finance Com
mittee for q reduction of the import
duty, that ground being based on the
known ascertained limit of the sugar ca
pacity of the United States. Allison
did not consider the amendment as in
any sense a change of position on the
part of the committee. Sugar produced
from sugar cane grown in the United
States had not kept pace with the in
crease of population. Eustis asked
whether, when the substitute was re-
ported, amajority of the Finance Con-
mittee was not as we'll informed as to the
sugar producing capacity of the United
States as when it proposed the bounty on
sugar. Allison said he did not know ex-
actly what the Senator from Louisiana
meant by that inquiry. He had not
known quite as much on the 9Th of Octo-
ber when the bill was reported
as he bad known when he offered
the amendment, and he even confessed
to having received some valuable inform
alton from witness who had been before
the Committee within the last few days.
Gibson asked Allison whether the COM
mittee had not heard OF the increase of
25 per cent on the sugar cane growing
area of Louisiana within the last three or
four years, and of an increase of nearly
100 per cent in the yield from cane by
improved methods.
Allison replied that the committee had
also learned that there was no "diffu-
sion" of the plant in Louisiana except
that created by the government of the
United States, but even with that diffu-
sion and its success as applied to the su-
gar cane, Spreckels had disclosed to the
Committee very clearly that he could
beat that production by the manufacture
of sugar from beets. While he admitted
that Louisiana had taken some recent
steps to improve the sugar-making pro-
cess largely. it should be borne in m ind,
he said, that tie increase of population
and the increase Of the consumption of
sugar was 80 great that 15O,0OO,0 900
pounds of sugar would be required to
supply that annual increase of consump-
ton. The state of Louisiana could not
supply sugar to meet that increased de-
maud, to say nothing of the 100000, 900
pounds of sugar now imported.
Vest limited at the "new light" which
had broken in upon the Finance Commit
tee and the political exigency" which
has led to the reporting of the amend
ment.
Allison denied emphatically that he,
in his judgment or that of the committee
in this matter, had been controlled by
Sherman advocated the amendment.
He asserted that there was strong feel
ing in the country against direct bounty
for the protection of anything, and yet
such bounties (as to salt fish and other
matters) had been supported by the most
eminent men in the history of the coun-
try. He believed that within ten years
sugar enough could be produced in the
country to supply the domestic market.
He understood that one-sixth of the en-
tire weight of beets could be converted
into sugar. Was it not therefore de-
sirsble thing to encourage the beet sugar
industry in the United States? 1t was
the bounty paid for beet sugar in France
and Germany that stimulated its enor-
nous productisn in those countries.
Gibson admitted the stimulating
effect of direct bounty in France and
Germany, but agreed that more power
full stimulant would have been duty of
not less than cents pound imposed on
sugar.
Sherman said he wished to see this
tried, not in the interest of
any party or any section and State, or
any community, but in the interest of
the whole country.
Eustis asked the Republican side of the |
chamber what became of the argument |
on their side, that the substitute was
framed on the theory, to use Hiscock's |
OK xpression, that it was the duty of the |
regardless of its needs or |
the condition of the taxpayers, to de- |