The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-01-18


formed as 70 f3e sa-ar- r-prsxs sucirg ea-
Tacisv of tie TnisszI States as x was
when Is proposed sssr bounty On sugar.
Allison said he did nos know ex2cssy
what fhe senator from Louisiana
rnenns bF that inquiry. He Allison,
had n0t known qasts as much on the
5th of October. when the bin was re-
ported. as be had known when he oE-
ferred the arnendmenf. snd he even
confessed 10 ytxeiysng some valuable
information froya Q EitEess who had
been before the committee in the last
few days.
Gibson asked Allison whether The
committee had nos heard os . . pser
cent increase OF the crow
ing area Of Louisiana within the last
three or four years. and Of an increase
OF nearly iVs PER cent. in the Weld
from cane by improved methods.
Allison replied thai the committee
had some testimony in thax line. But
the committee had also learned there
was no diffusion" plant in Louissana.
except that erected by the govern
ment Of the United States. but even
with that diffusion success rs ar-
Piled to-sagar-eare. Spreckels had dis
closed 70 the committee very clearly
thEs he c0ald asaT that production Nv
the manufacture OF sugar from
bsets- While he admitted tha. Louis
iAna had taken recent steps To iHA-
prove the sugar-mAking process
largely, K should he harne n mind. he
said. that the increase Of population
and the increase Of consumption of
sugar sxr capita was - great that ls0.-
co.. pounds os sugar would be re-
qasresi 20 sapnly that annual increase
of consumption The state OF Loaisi-
ana could not supply sugar 10 meet
that increase, to say nothing az the
J, 90, ~, 90 pounds OF sugar now i'm
ported.
Nest kinted at the ssnew light
which had broken upon the finance
committee. and the political exi-
geney" which had les. 20 the reporting
81 the amendment.
Allison denied emphaIicaisy that his
judgment o. that OF the committee on
this matter had been controlled bv any
political exigeney.F
Sherman advocated the amendment.
lie admitted there was asfrong feel
ing IN the country against q direct
bounty for protection og ANYTHING,
and yet such bounties tas 70 salt and
fish and other matters been supported
By the most eminent men in the his
tory OF the country. He believed
within 10 years sugar enough
could be produced in this
country to supply the domestic mar
ket. one-fourth OF the entire weight
ot beess could be converted into sugar.
Was il not. therefore. he asked, 4 de-
s1rabie thing TO encourage the bee4
sugar industry in the United States.
IL was The bounty paid for beet sugar
lEs France and Germany that had sfsrr-
uiated is enormous productisn in
those countries.
Gibson admitted the stimulating ei-
feet OF direct bounty in France and
Germany. but agreed that more
powerful stinlulant had been duty Of
less than four cents pound imposed
on imported sugar.
Sherman said be wished 10 see this
experiment tried, not in the interest
OF any party. any section and state, or
any community, bat in the interest of
the whole countay.
Eustis asked the Republican side OF
the chamber what became of the ar ]
gumeff on their side that the substl<
tute was framed on "a theory" 10 use
Hiscock's ; expression. that il was the /
duty OF she government to develop by
protective legislation every American
industry. whether II was hoarv-
headed, in its infancy. or still in the /
womb. He wanted 20 know il the I
Republican majority in tae senate pro- /
posed to kick the sugar interest oi /
Louisiana out of the national house +
hold and let il come TO the national 1
kitchen for crumbs of hreadf
Allison said Louisiana had grown /
strong and vigorous under a tariff i
trust, and had stood in with it and
abiaesi by il for sugar and sugar alone, 4
but when a proposition was made that /
would retiuce the price OF sugar 10 the 1
consumer cent pound. the senator
from Louisiana answered il BY a de- /
nunciation of the whole system. lie /
{ tAllisonl declared il would be better /
for the people to pay for the whole su-
gar crop Of Louisiana and dump il +
IN the gulf than keep up
the existing duty on sugar. I
The tax took $4,000. Geo out OF the I
pockets OF the people in order that the !
sugar producers in Louisiana might !
receive cent per pound on the infini- +
tesinally small proportion of sugar ]
they produced.
After some further discussion and /
without reaching n vote the senate /
went into executive session and soon /