Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1893-01-28
SUGAR BoUNTlsS.
Their History and Enects-The Mchinley
Rouuty Taxes Consumers to Enrich u
Few Big Planters, But Does Not Inerease
Production.

hOuntleS TIE people pay uuil N"aN my
yet. With protective duties they Otter
nav Tor many times what they get
Thus the duty on tin plate eompels us
to pay y cents per pound more for al
we consume. As only 5 per cent Is
made in this country a bounty Of II
cents per pound paid 10 the manufact-
urers would save the people 95 per cent
Of what they now pay 70 stimulate this
Industry, or about 81, 0O), 600 u year.
If bounties are unconstitutional SC
also are protective tariffs If bounties
have failed to produce healthy, self
sustaining industries so also have pro-
~tective tariffs Their records are much
slike-both bad The two industries
that have been most favored, or cursed,
BY bounties. are the shipping and the
sugar industries. France, Germany and
the United States have for years been
paying bounties to ship builders and
owners Their shipping has been de-
clining relatively, while England's has
been increasing, though England has
practically been paying little or no
bounties. On the subjectof sugar boun'
ties the following is from Mr., J, Alex.
Lindquist's pamphlet, Sugar and the
Tariff
Few industrial questions have
caused so much international discussion
as that of sugar bounties. In Europe
| bounties have been tried aud their bad
effects are known Whether the bounty
is paid on exports or directly on home
production the results are The same,
They inevitably lead to over.produc-
ton, and when exports decrease by a
withdrawal or l~essening of the bountics
the result Is to bring ruin upon the pro-
ducers. Such was found to be the en-
perience Of Russia, the sugar producers
of which demanded that production
should be limited by government de-
cree, In the case of France and Ger.
many the only alternative OF a stoppage
OF the bounties is the ruin Of a large
part Of those engaged in sugar produc-
ton who are not most favorably situ-
ated. Thus, though these governments
see that bounties result only in making
exported sugar cheap and sugar con.
sumed at home dear with the result
that the bounties bring no return what
ever to the people who pay them, they
dare not remove them, lest they ruin
the industry thus artifcially created.
1t is this fear that restraints these coun.
tries from joining together in a conven-
ton to abolish bounties. Such a state
of things would be the inevitable result
OF bounty payments in this country.
They might stimulate production, but
would never make a healthy and natur-
al industry. y y =
"n 1874 England abolished her i'm
port duties upon sugar, and every gov
eminent of Europe, as well as that Of
the United States, has in turn taken a
hand in the contest Of making sugar
and selling it to her at less than cost.
The annual gift made to the English
people in this way is estimated by Lord
Bramwell to be not less tran g, 900, 600.
or $4,000, 900. And A. LAlande, deputy
from the Gironde, in an article on sugar
bounties in l'Economiste Francois in
August, 1879, estimates chat about S45,.
100000 is annually paid by the Euro.
pean government to encourage the ex.
port Of domestic sugar.
This enormous sum of money is
drawn from the people Of the several
countries by taxation Noattempt will
be made here to explain all the separ-
ate systems Of bounty payments which
have from time to time existed, but only
the systems o in force will be given,
At present France, Germany, Austria.
the Netherlands, Belgium and the
United States pay bounties on the pro
ducjion or export of raw or refined SUI
gar"
In discussing the sugar bounties of
the Mckinley tariff act, Mr.. Lindouist
The essential provision Of the law
OF that fixing the rate of bounty
to be paid is the latter, which prescribes |
that to get the benefit OF the bounty
each planter must make his W sugar.
Now, it is a well known fact that onlv
the largest planters do this. The small
planters cannot afford the expensive
machinery required. As soon as the
law went into effect capitalists applied
the treasury department for an in.
terpetation of the law to determine
they would be permitted to
erect sugar houses for making sugar
from the cane produced by the smaller
planters The treasury department di-
rected that on sugar so produced no
could be paid. For the same
reason if the small planters were to sell
their cane to the large concerns the
sugar produced from it could not claim
,he bounty. The bounty, therefore, is
not for the small planters, who most
leed it, but for the large and powerful
Being unable to compete with
large planters, the small growers
vii be forced to the wall and COM.
'elled either to sell or lease their lands
o the big concerns or cease PRODUCING
This effect of the law has already
'een shown in the number of applica.
ions for licenses sent in to the commits.
Toner of internal revenue. The total
lumberof applications from cane sugar
is 73O, but many of these are
rom the same planters, since the regu-
require a separate application
or each plantation. All told, there.
Ore there are only about COO planters
Vho will receive the bounty. Accord.
ng to the estimates of the commits.
Toner these 900 concerns will divide
mong themselves a total of $40, $50. 900,
r sl7,95O each, this year. Seven beet
ugar growers will get 1854, 200, or $751;.
s. each; three sorghum planters, $50.
90, or s16,666 each, and 3,9aa maple
ngar makers, $3.50, 600, or s3s each-a
rand total OF sll, l34,2 200 to be paid out
I the money in the treasury collected
y taxation.
mot until 1905 can this law be re-.
called, and by that time there will
ave been paid to such concerns as the
affrey Central Sugar Refinery & Rail.
Dad Co, which will this year get s24O..
10 in bounties, a total Of sl67, 900, 600.
the present rate of production is
Maintained. 1t will, however, on ac-
)unt of increased production bo roo...