Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1894-09-21
The Sugar Bounty.
From the Boston journal |

to American producers of sugar is hardly
likely to be determined by the arbitrary
and otf-hand ruling of Secretary Carlisle
The Mckinley law provided for the pay
ment of a bounty of two cents pound on
sugar of American production, from July
l, 1891, to July /, 1905. The present law,
which took effect Aug. IS, repeats the sec
| ton of the Mckinley law under which
bounties were paid, and provides that
thereafter it shall be unlawful to issue any
| license to produce sugar or to paw any
bounty for the production of sugar of any
kind under the said act" There can be
no doubt that this provision forbids the is
sue of licenses or the payment of bounties
for sugar production after the date of the
act. The sugar producers who increas-
ed their capital and enlarged their
plant with the expectation that the
| bounty would be paid, as promised in
the Mckinley law, until 1905, must accept
their disappointment, so far as future crops
are concerned, as an incident of the muta-
tions 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 considerable quantities of
] sugar pllOl W Jllt pdSSdSc VI JLt
tariff? Producers of cane and beet sugar
took out licenses on the first of July, in &C
cordance with the provisions of the Nc
Kinley law, and their product was duly
certified to for bounty by government in
spectors 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 sup
| ply of their raw material. These contracts
were made on the basis of the law then in
force, and the manufacturers are held by
them, regardless of subsequent legislation
| by Congress. To cut off the bounty on
sugar produced under these conditions, by
| the application of an act passed late in
August is to make that act retroactive 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 existing law were complied with. Ii
censes were taken out, and the product was
duly certified to. Everything on the part
of the producer was done prior to the en-
actment 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 producers for bounty on last spring $
crop, it not only makes the German law
retroactive, but it uses il 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 of the proceeding is precisely
the same as if the government were to re-
pudiate any other of its just obligations.
1t does not seem credible that Secretary Car
Isle should persist in such wrong headed
Interpretation of the law; and there can
not be any doubt that his decision will be
overruled by the courts if the matter is
taken there for final settlement.
Immediately following the adjournment
of Congress Senator Henderson of Nebras-
ka, in behalf of the sugar beet manufac-
turers of that state, made a claim on the
secretary of the treasury for payment of
the bounty on the beet sugar crop for this
year, holding that the provisions of the
new tariff law do not extend to acts done
and completed under the law of 1890. In
answer Secretary Carlisle says that the
question which he has to decide is not
whether the sugar producers have a valid
claim against the government, but whether
the language of the new law does not cu
off his authority to pay the bounty. II,
holds that it does and that he has no dis
erection except to obey the letter of the law
the entire provision for the allowanc,
and payment of bounty having been re
seen proper to declare, in express terms
that it shall be unlawful to pay any bounty
after the act took effect"