The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-01-18
TO EFFECT TWO DESIRABLE OBJECTS.
The Proposed Bounty to American
Sugar Producers.
To Build Up a Great Industry and
Cheaper a Necessity.
Mr.. Reed Throws Some Light on the
Omnibus Bill.

WASHINGTON, Jan. l1.-Ine senate, al
1920, resumed consideration Of the tariff bill
In answer to Mr.. Hale, Mr.. Allison specified
as among important matters yet to be acted
on, the wooden, sugar, wool and wo0len
schedules. with many detached portions that
would lead to more or less debate.
Discussion of the tin plate amendment was
continued by Messrs. Vest, Allison, Plat
Salisbury, Plumb, German, Aldrich. Mitch.
ell and Call. The amendment was adopted
yeas, 25 nays, IS; Mr.. Brown voting aye. II
fixes the duty on tin plate, taggers, iron OF
steel, etc., when valued at three cents pound
or less, thinner than number 10, and not
thinner than number 20, wire gauge at one
cent per pound on thinner plates, at IL, 1.a
and IA cents per pound, and on corrugated OF
crimped plates, IA cents per pound. All
other iron or steel sheets, plates and hoops
excepting tin plates, when galvanized, OF
coated with zinc sheet, or other metal, are TO
pay of O cent per pound additional, and al
ter January /, 1890, tin plate Is to pay I OF a
cent per pound additional.
The amendment proposing bounty on su-
gar made from beets, sorghum or sugar cane
grown In the United States was taken up.
and Mr.. Vest declared emphatically his OPP
position to all such bounties, which he con-
sidered most Objectionable form Of protec-
tion. The idea Of the government going into
partnership with any individual or set Of in
dividualsito give them advantages at the ex-
pense Of the large body of the people, was a
relic OF absolute tyranny, utterly opposed 70
all free and popular governments.
Mr.. Allison said the finance committee had
been told that the protection which the SUBJ
stitute proposed to the sugar cane growers
wasn't sufficient and the committee sup
posed they would be satisfied with bounty
equivalent to the protection given under the
existing law. The object Of the committee
was to induce the production OF sugar In this
country from beets, sorghum and sugar cane.
Mr.. Gibson asked Mr.. Allison whether the
committee had not heard of the increase Of
% per CT. on the sugar cane growing area Of
Louisiana In the last three or four years and
Of the increase Of nearly 100 per cent In the
yield Of cane by the improved methods.
Mr.. Allison replied the committee had
some testimony in that line. The committee
had also learned there was no diffusion plant
In Louisiana except that erected by the gov
ernment. Even with that diffusion process,
Mr.. Spreckles had disclosed to the commit
tee very clearly that he could beat that pro-
duction by the manufacture Of sugar from
beets. The increase OF population and in
crease of the consumption Of sugar per capi-
ia Is SO great that 150,000, 600 pounds will be
required to supply the annual increase.
louisiana couldn't supply the sugar to meet
cally that In his judgment the committee
bad been controlled by political exigency."
BE looked upon the proposed bounty as an
experiment.
Mr.. Merrill said the proposed bounty on
sugar was not a new project. He had drawn
up and offered TO the committee last summer
a similar scheme.
Nj. Sherman advocated the amendment.
The United States could learn from France,
Germany, Austria and Belgium as to the
benefits Of encouraging the production Of
sugar from beets and he believed that within
ten years, sugar enough would be produced
in this country to supply the domestic market.
The existing duty on sugar was equivalent
to 50 or SO per cent. larger than Of other pro-
duct except rice. Notwithstanding her
enormous protection the relative proportion
Of the Louisiana production to the consump-
tion is less than it was 20 years ago. In
creased production of sugar would follow the
adoption of bounty and would reduce the
price.
Mr Eustis claimed that this proposal was
the abandonment OF the argument OF that
side that the substitute was framed on the
theory" that 1t was the duty Of the govern
ment to develop by protective legislation
every American industry whether hoary-
headed in its infancy or still in the womb.
out the sugar Interest interest Of Louisiana
from the National household like bastard
and let 1t come to the National kitchen
crumbs, then the only thing he could say
was that the Republican Senators had aban-
doned the ground on which they boasted Of
standing, and the last Presidential election
had been carried on false pretences.
Mr.. Morrill, remarked that the object Of
protection was amply secured by the propo-
sition to give bounty equivalent to the re-
duction in duty. The consumer would also
get his sugar for one cent pound less.
Mr.. Allison said the present tax took $685.
600, 900 out of the pockets of the people; that
the sugar producers Of Louisiana might re-
small proportion Of sugar that they pro-
duced. The pending proposition would save
So, 100000 or S23, ,0000 900 to the consumers xf-
ter the proposed bounty was paid.
Messrs. Plumb and Stewart advocated the
amendment. but without reaching a vote, af-
journed.