The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-10-01

S2,00O,000, in the fax and linen schedule
5000, 900, on tin plate SS.735 900, and on
tin in pigs or bars 81. 1857, 200.
sUBsIDIZING MANUFACTURERS.
No man. he said. could predict what the
effect OF that enormous increase Of the tax
alton would be, nor could any man predict
precisely what its effect would be on the
revenues Of the government. All that they
knew was thas the very purpose-the sole
purpose and object-of such increased taxa
tion on each necessary article was to in
crease the price Of domestic produce SO as
20 enable new industries TO be estab-
lsbed lin some cases. and to enable
in other cases old industries 60 realize larger
profits. But in order to compensate for
that enormous increase of taxation on the
tools and implements of trade and on cot
ton, woolen and linen clothing, a tax of 2
cents pound, amounting to IS, 500, ,0O0 was
TO be taken OFF tobacco. The removal of
that tax would relieve no man and be
beneficial to nobody except the
manufacturers and retailers of tobacco,
who would divide that cents q pound be-
tween them. No producer OF tobacco and
no consumer Of tobacco would be enefited
to the extent Of cent
THE SUGAR BOUNTY,
Coming 10 the sugar bounty, Senator
Carlisle said that that bounty would
amount on the basis of present production
30 between 81, ,000, 900 and $S, ,000, 900 year.
This was the first time he said, in the his
tory OF the country that it was proposed to
pay out of the public treasury bounty to
domestic produces But no part of the
bounty, he asserted would be paid to the
growers or beet, or sorghum or cane; every
dollar Of it would go TO the manufacturer.
1t might be said, however. that the pro-
ducer would receive higher price for his
produce. That he declared could not be;
for In the first place the farmers could not
control the prices of his products, and in
In the second place the manufacturer
or beet sugar would be compelled to sell his
sugar In the open market in competition
with the sugar made from cane and sor-
ghum, and could not afford to pay 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 if there was no bounty paid :;
sugar would sell in the markets at the same
price precisely as duty-paid refined sugar
coming from other countries.
A NEW DEPARTURE.
It was an entirely new departure in the
application Of the principle of protection in
this country, and was copied from paternal
governments of Europe. 1t did not apply
equally to all the people of the United
states, because there was a large area of
country In which cane, sorghum or beets
could not be produced. The advantage of
the bounty would be confined to
those who make sugar from cane grown
in louisiana, sorghum grown in Kansas,
and beets 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 right to impose taxes to raise
revenue for the purpose of promoting the
general welfare, and that the proposed
no constitutional prohibition to invaiidate
snch a law, because it was in violation of
the terms of every social compact in free
country.
Senator Carlisle signified his reluctance
to tire the Senate with his argument and
citations on this point, but he was encour-
aged by the democratic senators around
him (who appeared highly gratifed with
the effect which his speech would have) to
''go on"
RECIPROCITY PROVISION ATTACKED.
He did go on, and having disposed of the
legal points involved, he said that the bill
having put sugar on free list and provided
for bounty to home producers, permitted
the President to impose a duty on sugar,
unless the governments of sugar-producing
countries on this hemisphere should
do something that would be satisfactory
to his excellency." 1t was proposed not to
enact law that should take effect on the
happening or not happening of a particular
event, or occurrence, or fact, specified and
defined In law itself (which he conceded
could be done); but it was proposition to
confide to the Judgment or caprice of the
President alone the determination not
merely of certain facts defined in law, but
of the results and effects of these facts and
circumstances. The amendment offered
by the senator from Maine (Mr.
Halel had been substantially cor
rect, 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 its 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 produc-
ing them.
TO RETALIATE ON THE PEOPLE.
Sugar and molasses had been put on the
free list In the pending bill on the sole and
distinct ground that 1t would be for the
benefit of the people of the United States
the without any relation what
ever to the question OF reciprocity with
other nations. The proposition was
one to retaliate on the people of
the United States by imposing
a duty of 10 cents pound on tea, cents
pound on coffee, and from 35 to SO per cent.
on sugar unless China, Japan, Brazil and
Spain should do certain things over which
consumers in the United States had no
control.
Senator Carlisle referred to the incon-
sistency 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 pretention of opening the South Amer
loan markets to the agricultural products
of the United States
Senator Aldrich-W What is the senator's
contentiong that we have no market in
South America9
HOLLOW PRETENSE.
Senator Carlisle-I say that there is no
market there for our products 1 am not
taking a position against fair and proper
reciprocal arrangements with the countries
of South America or any other country,
but I am contending that the
pretense that this is to be done
for the benefit Of the farmers is q false pre-
tense, and that it can only result to the
benefit of producers Of manufactured arti-
clea in this country which are the kind of