Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1894-09-21
The Sugar Bounty.

4
Journal, is hardly likely to be
determined by the arbitrary and
oh-hand ruling of Secretary Car
Isle. The Mckinley law prorid-
cd for the payment of a bounty
of two cents a pound on sugar
of American production, from
Tulv l, 1891, to July /, 1905.
/ The present law, which took eff
feet Aug. 2S, repeats the section
of the Mckinley law under which
bounties were paid and provides
that hereafter it shall be unlaw-
full to issue any license to pro.
duCc sugar or to pay any boun-
ty for the production OF sugar OF
any kind under said act" There
can be no doubt this provision
forbids the issue of licenses or
the payment of bouuties for sug
ar production after date of the
act. The sugar producers who
increased their capital and en-.
Iarged their plant with the ex-
pectation that the bounty would
be paid, as promised in the Nc
Kinlev law until 1905, must &C
ccpt their disappointment, ofar
as future crops are concerned, as
an incident of the mutations of
politics.
But as to the crop of this year
the case is different. Has the
Government a right to break
faith with the producers to whom
licenses already had been issued,
and who had produced consid-
cradle quantities of sugar prior
to the passage of the German
tariff? Producers of cane and
beet sugar took out licenses on
the first of July, in accordance
with the provisions of the Nc
kinley law, and their product
was duly certified to for bounty
by Government Inspectors up to
the 2Sth of August. The beet
sugar factories of Nebraska and
other States made their contracts
last winter with the beet farmers
for this years supply ofraw ma
terial. These contracts were
made on the basis of the law
then in force, and the manu-
facturers are held by them, re.
CARELESS ofsubsequent legislation
by Congress. To cut off the
bounty on sugar produced under
these conditions, by the applica,
ton of an act passed late in
August, is to make that act ret.
roactive in a way forbidden by
the spirit, if not by the letter OF
the Constitution.
AS to the producers of maple
sugar, the case is even more plain
Their product was made last
spring. All the provisions of ex.
isting law were complied with
Licenses were taken out, and
the product was duly certified to
Everything on the part of the
producer was done prior to the
enactment of the new law
Some of the producers were paid
some were not; and the reason
for the delay in the case of the
latter was simply that the
Treasury was in straits, and
"stood off, every claim that
could be deferred. If now the
Government refuses to pay these
claims of the maple sugar pro,
ducers for bounty on last springs
crop, it not only makes the Cor
man law retro active, but it uses
it as a pretext to break faith
with the sugar producers. This
is sheer reputation. There is
no other word which adequately
describes it, and the iniquity o.
the proceeding is precisely the
same as if the Government were
to repudiate any other of its
just obligations. 1t does not
seem credible that Secretary Car.
Isle should persist in such d
wrong headed Interpretation Of
the law; and there cannot be
any doubt that his decision viii
be overruled by the courts if the
matter is taken there for fna
settlement.
|