Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1890-10-08
That. he declared could not be, for, in ,ht

That, he declared, could not be, for, in The
first place, the farmer could not control the
prices of his products and in the second
place the manufacturer of the beet sugar
would be compelled to sell his sugar in the
open market in competition with the
sugar made from cane and sorghum, and
could not afford to pay to the farmer one
cent more fer his beets than their value as
compared with the value of other substan-
ces from which sugar is made; nor would
the consumer, he said, receive any benefit
| 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 entirely new de-
parture in the application of the principle
of protection in this country, and was
copied from the paternal governments Of
Europe. 1t did not apply equally to all
the people Of the United States because
there was large area of the country in
which cane, 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. There was.
therefore, no possible ground on which the
constitutionality of that provision could be
maintained except the ground that Con-
gress had the right to impose taxes to
raise revenue for the purpose of promoting
the general welfare. and that the proposed
bounty was such proposition. 1t re-
quired no constitutional prohibition to in
validate such law because it was viola
ton of the terms of every social compact
in free country.
The courts had invariably held that no
State Legislature could authorize county
or municipality to impose taxes for the
purpose of encouraging manufactures or
any other industrial pursuits. If the States
could not do it. with unlimited powers OF
taxing, how, Mr.. Carlisle asked, could the
| general government do it? On this point
| MIR. Carlisle quoted at length from writer's
on jurisprudence and from decisions OF
courts in several States to the effect that
taxation for private purposes was not taxa
tion, but plunder. Among his citations
was one from o decision in 58th Maine,
where the question was whether counties
had the right to tax themselves to enable
corporations to carry on manufactures OF
various kinds, and where the court said
that such law would be for the benefit OF
the donee, but could not be for the benefit
of the people.
RETALIA1TyI56a N0fS RECIPROCITY.
! Having disposed of the legal points in
volved, he said that the bill, having put
sngar on the free list and provided for
bounty to home producers, permitted the
President to impose the duty on sugar un-
less the governments OF sugar. .producl ng
countries on this hemisphere 'should do
kH,k ho
his excellency." 1t was proposed not to
enact law that should take effect on the
happening or not happening of particular
event, or occurrence or fact specified and
defined in the law itself, (which he con-
ceded could be done,) but it was propo-
sition to confide to the judgment or caprice
of the President alone the determination
not merely of certain facts defined in the
law, but of the results and effects of those
facCs and circumstances. The amendment
offered by the Senator from Maine MIR.
Hale) had been substantially correct, but
the amendment reported from the finance
committee and embodied in the bill was
not reciprocity; it was retaliation pure and
simple. No form of words could disguise
it's true character. Coffee, tea and hides
had been on the free list for many years,
and had been put there for the benefit of
the people of the United States, and not as
an act of favoritism or friendship to any
foreign country producing them. Sugar
and molasses had been put on the free list
in the pending bill, on the sole and dis
tinct ground that it would be for the bene-
fit of the people of the United States-the
consumers-without any relation whatever
to the question of reciprocity with other
nations. The proposition was one to re-
taliate on the people of the United States
by imposing duty of 10 cents pound on
tea, cents pound on coffee and from 30
to SO per cent. on sugar unless China,
Japan, Brazil and Spain should do certain
things over which the consumers in the
United States had no control. Mr.. Carlisle
referred to the Inconsistency Of putting
sugar on the free list because the United
States did not produce large proportion
of the amount consumed here and putting
a high tax on tin-plate because the United
States did not produce any Of it. He also
ridiculed the pretension of opening South
American markets to- the agricultural
products of the United States.