The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1890-08-01
HUNGRY FOR BounTlEs.


The Sugar Bounty Extended to the Maple
Sugar Men, and Other Applicants For
Public Pap Put in Their Claims-Now Let
the Growers of Wheat and Cotton Speak
Out-McKiniey Makes a Weak Defense of
His Bounty BY Misht Quotation From
Hamilton.
Once the Government starts out to
giving bounties there will be no point
ut which it can stop without leaving
many unhappy bounty-hunters grumb-
ling because they were left out in the
cold.
No sooner was it known that McKin-
ley gave bounty of two cents pound
on sugar than the Vermont people, who
produce small quantity of maple sugar,
beset the Senate Finace Committee and
pleaded to be included in the bounty
clause of the bill.
OF course they could bring forward
very strong arguments ''Why make
discrimination against our maple sugar?
Is it not sugar, too, just as well as cane
or beet-root sugar? Does it not grow
out of the ground-and American
ground at that? Does it not require
| labor-American labor? Why not put
all American sugar on the same footing?"
Well, the Senate committee said that
! the maple sugar men had the better of
the argument, and SO maple sugar goes
into the bill for the two-cent bounty on
| every pound produced. Thus the makers
of maple sugar, as we'll as the growers of
cane and beet-ro0 sugar, are to be paid
to do their own business-paid out of
taxes collected from the people.
As the Senate committee showed itself
to be so generous to the maple sugar
men other bounty-hunters have come
forward to ask an extension of Govern
ment charity. This time it is the
makers of grape sugar and glucose,
which are largely used to adulterate
other products They have also an
American article, employ American Ia
bor and make a sugar too. Why should
they be left out? They are just as
thirsty for Government aid as any of the
other sugar makers. Now let US see
whether the Senate committee can give
any good reason for not taking the grape
sugar and glucose men in out of the
cold?
If Mckinley and his tariff-makers
were asked why it is necessary to give
bounty on sugar they would talk
about our sugar-growers not being able
to compete with the cheap labor of the
West Indies, South America and Ger
many; and they would give you care
fully constructed tables showing the
wages of farm laborers in those coun-
tries. OF course, they will say, our
sugar-growers can not compete with the
cheap labor, and therefore we must help
them in the unequal struggle by giving
them a bounty.
But does not Mckinley see that if the
cheap-labor argument is to be used to
defend his sugar bounty, the same ar
gurnent would apply equally well to the
growers of wheat and cotton? The
growers of American wheat are COM
PEELED to sell their crop in compe ii ton
with the cheap labor of Russia
and India; and the American cot
ton-growers must meet on the
wharves of Liverpool the cotton
produced by the miserably paid labor of
India and Egypt How can they do this
without bounty? Are not the wheat
and cotton growers good and worthy
American citizens? Do they not give
employment to American labor?
When Mr.. Mckinley brought his Tar
if bill into the House he accompanied
it with report in which he attempted
to bolster up his sugar bounty by quot
ing Alexander Hamilton, and saying
that ''the sanction of no higher author
ity in American craftsmanship could be
invoked
Then he makes quotation from
Hamilton in defense of bounties; but
the quotation itself shows in plain
black and white that Hamilton was ad-
vocating bounties ito stimulate and up
hold new enterprises. they were to be
applied ''to the acquisiti ton of new and
useful branch of industry" and Hamil-
toms bounty was to be "a temporary ex-
pense."
Seldom has a public man ever quoted
an authority so inaptly as Mckinley
did in this case; for sugar-growing is
not "a new industry under the most
liberal Interpretation of Hamilton's
words; and to speak of the 'acquisi-
ton" of it is simply gross misuse of
the English language. Again, Hamil-
ton speaks of temporary" expense
for the establishment of an industry
What right has Mckinley to assume
that at the end of his fifteen years
bounty the sugargrowing industry will
be any more able to stand on its own
feet than it is to-day? 1t has already
existed long enough to develop the nee
essary skill; and it is folly to hope that
the bounty will have the slightest eff
feet in developing greater degree of
skill in our sugar-making process, or
that this greater skill will be added as
permanent factor to the wealth-pro-
ducing capacity of the Nation.
AS the matter stands Mckinley gives
the sugar men $1,000. 900 a year out of
the peoples taxes; but how much that
will grow to in fifteen years nobody
knows. 1t may be twice as much or it
may be ten times as much. But if the
sum should even remain the same, that
would mean sos, 900, 600 for the fifteen
years-which is certainly an enormous
sum to pay people for doing their own
private business.
Mckinley, however, is champion
when it comes to knocking out surplus
But he sees that the people are going to
object to giving away this enormous
sum of money; and SO he fixes the dona-
ton for period OF fifteen years, hoping
that thereby future Congresses can not
undo his iniquitous bounty giving.
Smuggling at New York.
Extensive smuggling of clothing has
been detected by the Government Off
Gals in New York. The stewards, cooks
and other employees of the great ocean
steamers were hired to bring over the
bundles of clothing, which were finally
carried ashore in bundles of linen for