Baxter Springs news. [volume] (Baxter Springs, Kan.) 1882-1919, 1890-08-02

thirsty Tor 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?
II Mckinley and his tariff-makers
were asked why 1t Is necessary to give
q bounty on sugar they would talk
about our sugar-growers not being able
to compete with the cheap labor Of tho
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 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 we'll to tho
growers OF wheat and cotton? The
growers OF American wheat are COM
PEELED to sell their crop in competition
with the cheap labor OF Russia
and India; and the American cot
ton-growers must meet on tho
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 1.-The sanction OF no higher author
ity in American craftsmanship could be
invoked"
Then he makes q quotation from
Hamilton in defense of boInties; but
the quotation itsolf shows in plain
black and white that Hamilton was nd.
vocating bounties ito stimulate and up
hold new enterprises" thoy were to be
applied Ito the acquisition of new and
useful branch of industry" and Hamil-
toms bounty was to DO "a temporary ex-
pense."
Seldom has public man ever quoted
an authority so inaptly as Mckinley
did in this case; for sugar-growing is
not "a new industry" under tho most
liberal Interpretation of Hamilton's
words; and to speak OF the ''acquisi-
ton" Of it is simply q 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 sugar-growing 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 Of
feet in developing greater degree Of
skill in our sugar-making process, or
that this greater skill will be added as
a permanent factor to the wealth-prO-
ducing capacity Of tho Nation.
AS the matter stands Mckinley gives
the sugar men $1,000, 600 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 II the
sum should even remain the Same, that
would mean S1O5, 900. 900 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-
ion for period of fifteen years, hoping
hat thereby future Congresses can not
indo his UBIQUITOUS bounty giving.