Omaha daily bee., 1893-12-08

THE SUGAR BOUNTY.
IL Is stated on the authority of Repre-
sentative Burrows Of Michigan that the
republicans in congress will vigorously
oppose the proposition 10 extinguish the
sugar bounty in eight years, as provided
in the Wilson tariff bill. Their reason
for doing this is that the law asst stands
is a solemn compact between the gov
eminent and the sugar manufacturers
and the producers of beets and cant for
a period OF years. Mr.. Burrows said
further that the republicans would ac-
cept the extinguishment plan rather
than nothing, but he expressed the be-
lief that the sugar bounty as
promised will be carried out ~
the full period fixed by law.
Under the plan provided for in the Will
son bill the , cents bounty on sugar
would be removed as follows: One and
three-fourths cents per pound for fiscal
year lS94-05. II cents per pound for fiscal
year 1896, Ii cents per pound for fiscal
year lS96-97, | cent per pound for fiscal
year 1928, I cent per pound for fiscal
year ls9S-99, ! cent per pound for fiscal
year lS99-l90G, t cent per pound for fiscal
year 1900-l90l, and would cease in the
fiscal year 1902. The lower grades would
be reduced in like proportion.
The present tariff law provides that
the sugar bounty shall continue from
July |, 1891, until July 1, 1905, and the
appropriation to pay the bounty was
made continuing or permanent. In his
argument before the ways and means
committee in September Mr.. Oxnard,
president of the American Beet Sugar
association, held that ''the object of
fixing a time in the law was to influence
and to induce capital to embark in a new
and somewhat hazardous agricultural
industry, requiring for success large
sums of money and great skill, the ma
tional purpose being to attain the pro-
duction of a household necessity larger
in amount than the tariff policy had
heretofore produced, and so cheaper the
price and render this country independ-
ent OF the world for sugar" AS a mat
ter Of fact the effect of the bounty was
to induce capital to go into the business
of producing and manufacturing beet
sugar and also to encourage the pro-
ducers and manufacturers of zane sugar
to materially enlarge their operations.
1t has been stated that the capital in
vested in the sugar industry in Louisi-
n increased over 81, 000. 900 since the
bounty went into effect, and the further
enlargement of the industry was con-
templated in the event of there being
no interference with the bounty. Ey-
erybody knows that this legislation had
a very decided effect in stimulating the
production of beet sugar and that
there was an excellent prospect of
the steady growth of this industry until
the danger became apparent that the
success Of the democratic party might
result in the abandonment of the bounty.
Nobody can read the terms of the Nc
kinley law without admitting that there
is substantial ground for the contention
which the supporters of the bounty
make, that it was intended by congress
to be in the nature of u compact between
the government and the producers and
the manufacturers of domestic sugar,
and that it should continue, without
change or modification, for u definite
period. namely, fourteen years,
from July l, 1891, to July l, 1905. The
republicans in congress may not succeed
in defeating the purpose to gradually
do away with the bounty. thereby kill
ing the sugar industry in the United
States by slow degrees, but they will be
able to make out a strong case against
the moral right of congress to thus set
aside a law of a preceding congress,
which is distinctly in the nature of a
compact, and was undoubtedly intended
by the congress that passed it to be 50
regarded.