The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-04-01
TWELVE PAGES.
The Sugar Bounty Outrage.

A telegram from Washington to the
New York Commercial Bulletin says 'it is
evident that the cost of the bounty sys-
tenn is going to be more than Maj. Nc
KINLEY and his friends estimated when
they carried the new-tariH bill through
congress" The telegram continues:
It is estimated at the treasury depart
ment, upon the basis of the production of
sugar in 1890, that S9,000.000 will be
called for for bounties-about SS,OO0,000
for cane sugar, s, 100000 for beet sugar
and sorghum sugar and $4,000 for maple
sugar The great bulk of the expenditure
for cane sugar will % to the Louisiana
planters, who produce 4O0OO0,OOO pounds
per year, against only about 100000
pounds in Texas and 100000 in Flor
ida. There are 746 cane sugar producing
institutions in Louisiana, twenty in Texas
and one in Florida. Sorghum is produced
at six institutions in Kansas and beet
sugar at one institution in Nebraska and
two in California. Another factory is
building in California ana one in Utah
and one in Iowa. The maple sugar pro-
ducers, who are LARGELY in Vermont, are
estimated at between 10000 and $1,000,
and their production at 50,000.000 pounds
The estimates made cover only the present
production and make due allowance for the
stimulus of the big bounty. The bounty
itself is not all of the expense, for it was
necessary to add Sl65,000 to the appropri-
alton of the internal revenue bureau for
deputy collectors and other officials and
$4,000 for the payment OF inspectors sal
aries and expenses, and to authorize six
additional clerks in the commissioner
off g.
Could there be greater outrage upon
the people than this bounty? The farm
ers of Indiana, who raise wheat, corn. oats
and other crops, get no bounties from the
government They are compelled to sell
their products in the open markets of the
world in free competition with the prod
ucts of the cheap labor of India Russia
and other foreign countries. But they are
denied the privilege of buying manufact-
ured articles in the open markets OF the
world. They are compelled by law to
purchase from American manufacturers
who, under the shelter of protection"
organize themselves into combines and
trusts for the purpose Of extOrting higher
prices for their goods from the American
farmers than they get for the same goods
from the latter's rivals in foreign countries.
But these impositions upon the Indiana
farmers were not heavy enough to suit
the McKinleyites, so they still farther
increased the taxes upon the Indiana
farmers, and are taking a part Of the
money thus extorted from them and pay
ing it over to Louisiana sugar farmers
and Vermont sap farmers. Under the
bounty system at least SS,0o0,C0O a year
will be paid direct TO the Louisiana sugar
planters. The sugar planters of Texas
will get over $4,000 year, and those OF
Florida over 100000. \ few Vermont
farmers who produce that innocent
yankee luxury, maple sugar, will receive
orer half M lion dollars annually, and
Senator PLUMB of Kansas, a republican,
has publicly declared that this maple
sugar provision was got into the Nc
Kinley bill by a trick, and that it was kept
there because Senator EDMUNDs threat
ened to vote against the whole bill if it
were stricken out.
This eight million dollars that is to be
paid the Louisiana planters. and this half
million dollars that is to be paid the Yer
mont sap patriots, will be absolute gifts
The money will simply be taken from
other people in the form Of taxes upon
food, clothing and other necessaries of
life, and turned over TO these fortunate
gentlemen. Why should this be done?
Why should the government pay one
class of men for producing sugar from
cane or maple sap out of the taxes wrung
from the men who raise wheat and corn
and tobacco? Is sugar-growino more
commendable than wheat-growing? Is
sugar a more important article of food
than bread or meat? Are the Louisiana
planters or the Vermont farmers better
men, or more deserving in any way, or do
they need money any worse than the In
diana farmers? Why are the latter dis
eliminated against in favor of the former 2
Why is their hard-earned money taken
from them by the government and turned
over to the Louisiana and Vermont chaps?
Why should sugar-growing any more
than wheat-growing be encouraged by
bounties?
The Indiana farmers should insist upon
answers to these questions. They reach
the core of this whole question of tariff
taxation. They bring out, in sharp relief,
the monstrous injustice of the Mckinley
system of licensed spoliation.
A Piece of Monumental Assurance.