The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-10-10
ALLISON oN srGAR.

demonstration that the tax on raw sugar
is purely revenue tax and not protection
/ to any material extent. He said:
! We had seen that under high tariff
( duties on sugar, the sugar cane industry
K OF Louisiana failed TO develop. from year
TO year, any large increase Of product, 50
I that our large consumption, with a few
/ exceptional years under slavery, less than
one-tenth was produced in our own coun-
I try, and in 1890 about One-ninth. This
/ failure to produce at home any consider
able fraction Of our consumption had the
I effect 70 add the tariff duty u the price
/ OF sugar imported from abroad and that
produced at home, thus compelling the
consumers of sugar to pay the foreign
price with duty added. In other words
the amount of the duty became a part
Of the price. and thus the duty became
tax upon all consumers Of sugar.
This is something that every voter
should bear in mind. Whatever tax he
pays on sugar in it's purchase price, under
a revenue tax, he pays directly to the
treasury OF the United States, and not
into the pockets Of his fellow-citlzens who
have the power to get republicans TO
enact laws for their private benefit. Ev-
cry loyal American is willing to pay his
fair share Of the burden of supporting
| the government. but many of them object
to contributing TO the accumulations Of
tariff benefciaries. And Mr. Allison bore
testimony to this as follows:
This law Of 1890 as respects sugar took
effect April l, 1891. The bounty gave
great impetus to the production of cane
sugar in Louisiana and Texas, and ii at
once started the development of the beet
sugar Industry in Nebraska and in Cali
fOrnia. The result has been that during
the year 1893 Louisiana nearly doubled
her production, and a number Of sugar.
beet factories were established. This pol
icy Of a bounty on sugar was seized
upon by the democratic party IS means
OF critiCising adversely the law of 1890
as being unjust to other producers, and
straightway the cry was heard every
where that a discrimination was made
against other agricultural products. and in
favor of those who produced sugar from
cane and beets; and in 1892 this was one
Of the many things that was used with
effect.
But Notwithstanding the popular con-
demnation Of this syetem Of taxing the
people. avowedly not for the purpose OF
supporting the government, but for con-
tributing to the bank accounts of the
sugar growers, Senator Allison declares
and shows that the republicans still ad-
vocate the sugar bounty and will put it
in force If given the opportunity.
1t must not be forgotten in this discus
sion that the republican party in the
senate and the house voted against every
provision and every suggestion placing a
duty upon sugar. They were willing t.
encourage the production Of sugar in this
country by means OF a system Of b0unties
which proved 50 successful under the act
Of 1890. and therefore voted for each and
every bounty provision that was offered:
first, that proposed in the law OF 1890
and then for diminishing bounty extend
ing over a period Of years. 1t was dem
Onstrated in the debate that it was cheap
er and easier for the people of the United
States to pay this bounty than 10 pay the
duty proposed In the bill
OF course it Is easier to pay it, but why
should it be paid? The tariff tax is paid
on sugar to support the government. Mr..
Allison admits it, The bounty. which is
necessarily paid by taxes. is paid directly
10 the planters. There remains, therefore,
still to be raised by taxing the people in
some other form, the amount of money
that would have been raised by the tariff
tax. Hence the people in fact have to
pay both taxes under the bounty system
Our readers will remember that the OBJ
ject of the Mckinley tax was to stop
money from coming into the treasury and
continue its flow into the pockets of the
protection benehciaries. That was the ex,
press declaration Of the republican plat
the party would, II necessary, abolish all
our internal revenue taxation rather than
destroy any part of our protective sys-
TEN. And that was why sugar was re-
revenue for the government and placed
with those which produced expense for
the government. And Mr.. Allison says it
will be put there again by the repub-
leans.
Mr.. Allison asserts that he is very de-
sirous of raising the sugar we use at
home instead of spending our money
abroad, and calls attention to the fact
that I'VE paid in 1898 for imported sugar
Sis 900 and in 1894 Sis OOOO 900 Che prob
ably meant S12S,OOO,OOO, sending out of
the country money or its equivalent to
pay for it." But he fOrgets that this is
under his law which was to stop impor-
tation and keep the money at home. and
that these amounts are largely in excess
of the importation for any preceding
years. The truth Is that the increase in
Importation is far in excess of the in
crease Of the home supply, and that as
developer Of al home industry that will
supply domestic wants the sugar bounty
is a farclcal failure.
But more important still. Mr. Allison
forgets, as do all republicans who attempt
to discuss sugar. that the price of sugar
in this country Is controlled by the sugar
trust to precisely the extent it can ex-
clude foreign competition. and that the
movements Of sugar prices therefore do
not follow the ordinary rules Of prices
affected by tariff taxation. At the pres
ent time. and for the several weeks The Sen
tinel has been quoting sugar prices, sugar
is cheaper than 1t was at the same time
last year. During our quotations the
prices have fallen materially. They are
now lower than they were two years ago.
Whatever may be the reason Of It, ii Is
an actual fact that no sugar tax bas o-