Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1890-10-10

sugar manufacturer. It might be said,
however, that the producer would re-
ceive higher price for bis produce.
That, he declared, could not be, for. in
the first place, the farmer could not con-
troll the prices Of bis products, and III
the second place, the manufacturer Of
the beet sugar would be compelled to
sell his sugar in the open market ia
competition with the sugar made from
cane and sorghum, and could not afford
to pay to the farmer 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, he said, receive any benefit
from the bounty. He would not get his
sugar one cent cheaper than he would
get it, it there was no bounty paid, for
the bounty-paid sugar would sell 10 the
markets ut the same price precisely as
the duty paid refined sugar coming from
other countries. 1t was an entirely new
departure in the application of the prin-
ciple of protection in this country, and
was copied from the paternal govern
ments of Europe. II did not apply equally
to all the people of tho United States
because there was large arca OF the
country in which cane. sorghum or beet
could not be produced Tho 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 North
west. There was, therefore, no possi-
bic ground on which the oonstitutionali-
ty of that provision could be maintained
except the ground that Congress 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 required no
constitutional prohibition to invalidate
such a law because it was violation of
the terms of every social compact in a
free country.
The courts had invariably held that
no State Legislature could authorize a
county or municipality to impose taxes
for the purpose Of encouraging manufac-
lures or any other industrial pursuits.
If the States could not do it, with un-
limited powers Of taxing how, Mr.
Carlisle asked. could the general gov
ernment do il? On this point Mr.. Car
Isle 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
taxation, but plumber Among bis Oh
tations was one from decision 10 18th
Maine, where the question was whether
counties had the right to tax themselves
to enable corporations to carry on man.
ufactures Of various kinds, and where
tho court said that such law would be
for the benefit Of the donee, but could
not be for the benefit Of the people.
RETALIATION NOT RECIPROCITY.
Having disposed Of the legal points
involved. he said that the bill, having
put sugar on the free list and provided
for bounty to home producers, per-
mitted the President to impose the duty
on sugar unless the governments Of su-
gar producing countries on this hemis-
phere "sboud do something that would
be satisfactory TO his cxcellency.' It
was proposed not to enact law that
should take effect on the happening or
not happening Of particular event, or
occurrence OF fact specified and defined
in the law itself, (Which he conceded
could be dono, but it was n proposition
to confide to tho judgment or caprice OF
the President alone the determination
not merely of certain facts defined in
tho law. but Of results aud effects of
those facts and circumstances. The
amendment offered by the Senator fron
Maine (Mr. IIale) had been substan-
tally correct. but the amendment re.
ported from the finance committee and
embodied in the bill was not reciprocity;
it was retaliation pure and simple. No
form Of words could disguise its true
character. CoIfeo, tca and hides hal
been on the free list for many years.
and had been put there for the benefit OF
tho whole people, and not as an act Of
favoritism or friendship to any foreign
country producing them. Sugar and
molasscs had been put on the FREQ list
in the pending bill, on the sole and dis
tinct ground that il would BIO for the
benefit OF the people of the United
States consumers without any re-
laton Whatever TO tho question Of reci
procty with other nations. The propo-
sition was one TO retaliatc on the people
Of the United States by imposing a duty
Of 10 cents pound on tea, 3 cents II
pound on coffee and from 80 10 30 per
cent on sugar unless China, Japan.
Brazil aud Spain should do certain
things over which the consumers in the
United States had no control. Mr.. Car
Isle referred TO the Inconsistency of put
ting sugar on the free list because the
United States did not produce u l,rge
proportion Of the amount consumed here
and putting high tax on tin-plate be-
cause the United States did not produce
any of it. lie also rdiculed the pre-
tension Of opening South American
markets to the agricultural products Of
tho United States.
Mr.. Gray asked Mr. Carlisle to state
the additional revenue that would result
from the imposition Of duties on sugar.
coffee and tea, and Mr. Carlisle stated
it as $52, zoo, 000-$28, 900, 900 for
sugar, SI7, 200, 900 for coffee and ST.
SOC, 900 for tea.
"Have you family ?" asked west
ern Judge Of man who was making
- =. n