Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1890-10-17
Semi tor Carlisle's Estimate of It's
EffnHf


Effect.
mfr Carlisle's Closing speech in the U.SSenate.]
Unless all his calculations were at fault
the average rates of duty under the conference
bill and Administrative bill on dutlable artl-
cles would be GO per cent, instead OF 451a per
cent. under existing law. If the Senator
from Rhode Islard would take the articles
now on the dutiable list and deduct sugar and
molasses from them he would find that the
average rate Of duty under existing law was
a little over Il per cent, willie the average
rate of duty on the same articles under the
conference bill would be 60 per cent, an in
cleased rate of 80 per cent.
Mr.. Carlisle went on to give lgures as to the
increased taxation under the conference bill,
stating it to be, in the iron and steel schedule,
$40 600 900; in the wooden schedule S14, 900 900:
in the cotton schedule, S2,000,000; in the flax
and linen schedule, $4,000, 900; on tin-plate,
S. 600 and on tin in pigs or bars, 81 ,357 000
No man, he said could predict what the effect
of that enormous increase of taxation would
be, nor could any man predict precisely what
the effect would be on the revenues of the
Government. All that they knew was that
the very purpose-the sole purpose and OBJ
ject-of such increased taxation on those nee
essary articles was to increase the price Of
domestic products so as to enable new indus
tries to be established Gin some cases), and to
enable Tin other cases) old industries to real
iZe larger profits. But in order to compensate
for that enormous increase of taxation on the
tools and implements OF trade. and on cotton,
wooden and linen clothing, tax of cents
pound amounting to S5,S00,000) was to be
taken off tobacco. The removal of that tax
would relieve no man and be benefit to no.
body except the manufacturers and retail lers
of tobacco, who would divide that 2 cents a
pound between them. No producer of tobacco
and no consumer of tobacco would be benefited
to the extent of 1 MILL
THE BOUNTY ON SUGAR.
Coming to the question of the bounty on
sugar-1A cents per pound on sugar polariZ-
ing up to 80 per cent, and 2 cents on sugar
polariZing over 80 per cent, he said that that
bounty would amount, on the basis OF the
present production, to between seven and
eight millions year. This was the first time,
he said, in the history OF the country that it
was proposed to pay out of the public treasu-
~ bounty to domestic producer.
But no part of the bounty he asserted would
be paid to the grower of the beet or sorghum
OF cane: every dollar of it would go to the
sugar manufacturer. 1t might be said, how
ever, that the producer would receive high
er price for his produce. That Che declared)
could not be; for, in the first place. the far
mer could not control the prices of his pro-
ducts, and in the second place the manufac-
turer of beet sugar would be compelled to
sell his sugar in the open market i'll competl-
ton with the sugar made from cane and sor-
ghum; and could not afford to pay to the far
mer one cent more for his beets than their
value as compared with the value of other
substances from which sugar is made, nor
would the consumer, lie ItColN0 any DtIl-
eft from the bounty. He would not get his
sugar one cent cheaper than he would get it if
there was no bounty paid; for the bounty paid
sugar would sell in the markets at the same
price precisely as the duty-paid refined sugar
coming from other countries. 1t was an en-
tire new departure in the application of the
principles of protection in this country and
was copied from the paternal Government OF
Europe. 1t did not apply equally to all the
people of the United States because there was
| off, Ia n
! sorghum or beet could not be produced. The
| advantage of the bounty would be confined to
those who make sugar from the cane grown
in Louisiana, the sorghum grown in Kansas
| and the beet grown In the Northwest.
THE BOUNTY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
There was therefore, no possible ground
| on which the constitutionality OF that provis-
| ion could be maintained except on the ground
| that Congress had the right to impose taxes tC
| raise revenue for the purpose OF promoting
the general welfare, and that the proposed
bounty was such proposition. 1t required nc
a law because 1t was violation OF the terms
of every social compact in free country.
The courts had invariably held that no State
legislature could authorize county or mu
| nicipality to impose taxes for the purpose O.
encouraging manufactures or any other indus
trial pursuits. If the States could not do i
with unlimited powers of taXing) how, Mr.
Carlisle asked, could the general Government
do it +? On this point MI. Carlisle quoted a
length from writers on Jurisprudence and from
decisions of courts in several States to TIN
effect that taxation for private purposes Wa
not taxation, but plumber. Among his cita
lions was one from a decision in So Maine
where the question was whether the countie
had the right to tax themselves to enable col
poratioHs to carry manufactures of variou
kinds; and where the court said that such
law would be for the benefit OF the donee, bu
could not be for the benefit of the people.
Mr.. Blair put the case of a bounty paid o.
crows in New Hampshire.
MI Carlisle replied that that bounty Nigh
inure to the benefit of everybody in the State
while the sugar bounty could inure only t
S the United States where cane, sorghum all
beet were produced. So that it was not
= bounty to promote the general welfare. BIT
y only to promote the welfare Of particular Il
t calities.
e Coffee, tea and hides, had been on the fire
: list for many years, and had been put thel
. . for the benefit of the people of United State
d and not as an act of favoritiSm or friendShi
: to any foreign country producing then
Sugar and molasses had been put on the fire
list in the pending bill on the sole and distint
ground that it would be for the benefit of til
people of the United States-the consumers
J without any relation whatever to the questio
: of reciprocity with other nations. The prOpt
sition was one to retaliate Oh the people OF I'll
United States by imposing duty Of 10 cent
pound on tea cents pound Oh coffee, an
from 35 to 50 per cent on sugar. unless China
Japan, Brazil and Spain, should do certai
things, over which the consumers in the I'm
ted States had no control. Mr.. Carlisle II
ferred to the inconsistency of putting suga
on the free list because the United States di
not produce large proportion of the amour
consumed here, and putting high tax on ii
plate because the United States did not prt
luce any oft.