The Indiana State sentinel., 1894-08-29
TINT suGAR bounty.


THAT SUGAR BOUNTY.
The change Of front Of the republican
press on the sugar question. so far as 1t
affects the production Of cane sugar in
this country. and especially in Louisiana,
is quite remarkable For years these
papers. and the entire republican party,
have insisted that it was impossible that
there should even be enough cane sugar
produced in this country to supply the
domestic demand unless the industry was
continually protected by tariff or aided
by a bounty. Now comes the Chicago
Inter Ocean with the startling statement
that had the (AIcKinley) law been al
lowed to stand for the fourteen years for
which it was passed, Louisiarl would
have been able TO have furnished all the
sugar needed In the United States" Such
a statement IS rank nonsense. There
would unquesaonably be a considerable
increase in the production of cane sugar
50 long as the bounty continued, but
there could never have been enough to
y.
and with the bounty removed Louisiana
could not produce any more sugar. rela-
lively than it did in the past. Indeed.
the Inter Ocean admits this. as follows:
What impetus the bounty system
has given TO the sugar production OF
Louisiana is shown by the fact that the
crop Of 1891. the first grown under the
bounty. was 336,326.2S6 pounds, that OF
1893, last year, 59S.60l. III pounds, and
that promised for this year S45 2207 775
pounds. an increase OF 152 per cent in
three years. The planters expended
great deal or money early In the season
in improving their planta tions increased
their acreage 20 per cent, and many
changed from the old-fashioned open ket-
tie 10 the vacuum pan process, this re-
quiring entirely new and expensive ma
chlnery During the last few weeks,
however. when the tariff situation at
Washington looked unpromising ex-
penses were all cut down and all i'm
provements ceased.
Every one knows that the soil of Louis
lana is no more productive than formerly.
Its planters do not raise cane any cheaper
chan formerly. The only difference is the
bounty. and II the country should pay a
similar bounty on other agricultural prod
ucts there would be a similar result. II
the government paid a bounty OF 2 cents
a pound on oats all farmers who could
would raise oats. even IL they had to
use the oats for fuel afterward. The
whole bounty system is a transparent
fraud on the people, and McKinley's COM
mittee was 50 Informed before 1t began
the system. The sugar men were all op-
posed to 1t. Ex-Governor Warmoth said
to them. in the course OF his examination:
1t will do no possible harm II you make
IL permanent. III this proposition TO pay
bounty should prevail everybody would
believe II would not last one year. and
YOU could not find an iron man In Penn
sylVanta or Ohio or anywhere else that
VIII sell machinery TO a Louisiana plant
er on time-and they have 20 buy on
tlme-f they had TO got it out OF this
bounty. Crarin hearings, D. 637)
The Hon. S. II. Peters. a republican
representative. protested most earnestly
against It, although the people OF his dis
trict were largely interested In sugar
beet culture. He said:
l think IL Is a contemplate thing. so far
as legislation goes. My objec-
ton Is, In the first place, II cannot be
made permanent. There IA no congress
sional legislation that the Fifty-first con-
gress can place upon the statute books
that cannot be changed by the Fifty
second. There would be a strong
element Of agitation which would enter
into the question Of bounty and that
would be this: Suppose you raise one
half the consumption OF sugar In the
United States and run that bounty up
until $25 900 or money was paid al
rectly from the treasury. There would
not be a school house In your district
where they would not have meetings and
pass resolutions demanding It's repeal
Why? Because 10 Is paying S25. .0OO. 900 dl-
rectly In money from the treasury in
stead OF paying IL, under the tariff by
bringing in almost imperceptfbly the
money from those who Import the sugar
The difficulty about n Is that
your bounty ~ not given to the proper
| person. IL is bounty on sugar, and a
farmer who needs the benefit OF leglsla-
uon mas nothing TO do with the making
OF sugar. IL requires capital, and the
farmer cannot usually afford 10 put up a
plant OF $4,000. Crarff hearings. p 64l)
How true this statement has prevent
The small farmer received no benefit
whatever from this bounty II all went
10 those who were able 10 invest In the
machinery necessary for the vacuum pan
process And every school house in the
country has denounced the system as an