, 1890-04-17

port oriticises the sugar bounty and pro-
tests ngainst the gross favoritism and in
Justice of such n policy. 1t says! "The
bounty on last years production would
have been s7,52D, 600, but as 1t is ex-
pectod to encourage the producers to
supply the entire domestic demand the
ultimate result, even IL the consumption
remained at last years figure ZOO, i2i,-
3o2 poundsh there would be an
annual payment of sol ,b2s, i26
in bounties. Tho sugar duty is defended
as far more Just and equitable than
the minority believe that the duty
should be reduced they can not soc tho
Justice or propriety of making this
article free, and making this excuse for
imposing SOS, ,0O0, 900 additional taxes
ON the other schedules the minority
inds IL impossible to state with ac.
curacy the effect Of the increases. They
express the opinion that the total in.
crease OF the duties on articles still
dutiable, outside of the sugar schedule,
Will be about S65, 900, 600. and we are
satisfied that it will bc more
than that. We do not mean to
assert that tho bill will actually
increase the customs revenue SIS, 600. 90
over what 1t is, but that IL proposes to
impose upon articles on the dutiable list,
except sugar and molasses, that sum in
excess of the amount collected on the
same schedule last year. 1t places upon
the free list articles which yielded rev.
enue OF t6,O3o, DO during the last fiscal
year, and makes reduction Of sol, ,D22,
10 on sugar and molasses and these two
sums, amounting to SEQ 962, 07O, being
deducted from the So, ,UOO, COO, leave but
an increase OF more than 5000, 900 in
the tariff taxation under the bill.
Sir. MxEsSA DissESrs.
Mr.. McKenna dissents from the bill in
the sugar schedule. lie says: 1t
makes an arbitrary and inyidious dis
tinction between the sugar industry and
other ind dustrics, q distinction inconsis-
tent with the principle upon which the
bill should be framed and upon which II
can alone be justified. Protection, as
understood politically. is clearly right
for all industries or of none. a tariff
may be a tax, the bounty is certainly
one, fixed and unavoidable, and in.
creased with the production 1t encour-
ages, and finally vanishes in the compe.
tition OF home products. A bounty
abandons the home market to the foreign
producti tariff secures home market
to the home product, A bounty there
fore is as useless as 1t is burdensome,
and as odious as 1t is useless. It has no
justification in either the practice, prin-
ciples or profession of the republican
party. Ifa bounty is useful for sugar
why not for other things2 In all the
range Of articles with which the bill deals
are none fit for u bounty but sugar.
II n bounty is a tax of "A less burden than
Is the tariff why are sugar consumers
selected for favor2 The republican
house Of representatives should not set
this example. Who can say where the
contagion of IL will stop2
Speaking of the beet sugar industry of
California, Mckenna says; Must the
country be aDic to supply home con
sumption before II Is entitled to protec-
ton? Other industries have not done
this. Industries have been protected in
every tariff bill, and are protected in the
present bill. One of the accusations
against the present law is that IL returns
the duties levied for war expenditures.
Why1 II sugar Is to be
placed on the FREQ list, 1t will
be puzzling TO answer that,
why3 II is submitted that upon every
principle upon which protective duty
can be applied TO any American indus
try IL must be applied to sugar, and
that upon every principle upon which u
protective duty can be denied TO sugar
il must be denied to every other Ameri-
can industry. Protection must be uni.
versal. or not at all. IL must be national,
or not at all. The bill presented gives q
bounty 10 silk and raw silk, IL Is as OBJ
jectionable as the bounty ON sugar.