The herald., 1894-10-28


eighth additional upon the refined arti-
Gle. There are two propositions in
volved here. One is with reference to
the imposition OF tariff tax. instead of
a bounty, and the other, the allowance
of one-eighth for refining. 1t is not
necessary to demonetrate that the pres
ent law upon this topic is the beet that
can be devised. 1t is sufficient to prove
that it is better for the people than the
former statute. Under the Mckinley
bill raw sugar was admitted free, osten-
sibly in the interest OF the people,
really in the interest of the trust. /
will consider the revenue duty as con.
trasted with the bounty. leaving the
trust benefits for immediate subsequent
consideration.
The Mckinley bill under schedule E,
sugar, 23I. provided that on and after
July l. 1905, there should be paid to the
producers of sugar OF certain test,
made from beets, sorghum or cane grown
within the United States, or from maple
sap produced therein, bounty Of cents
per pound.
Under this law no money went into
the treasury. On the contrary, money
was paid out of the treasury directly into
the pockets of the producer. This is
wholly unjustfable upon any theory.
When the proposition was made in the
house of representatives. McKenna, who
was then a Republican member of the
committee on ways and means, and who
is now the honored circuit judge of
this circuit, filed q minority re-
port. from which / make the follow
ing pertinent extracts: "The bill in
its sugar schedule makes an arbitrary
and invidious distinction between the
sugar industry and all other industries,
distinction inconsistent with the prin-
ciple upon which the bill is framed and
upon which it can only be justified.
Protection, as understood politically. is
the clear right of all industries or of
none, The means of it is q tariff. not
largess from the treasury. The distinc-
tion is not one of words. 1t is dietinc-
tion firm and clear in substance and
effect. A tariff may be tax. A boun-
ty is certainly one. fixed and unavoid-
able, and increases with the production
it encourages. A tariff tax lessons with
the production it encourages. and finally
vanishes in the competition of home
producers. A bounty abandons the
home market to the foreign product;
tariff secures the home market to the
home product. A bounty, therefore. is
as useless as it is burdensome, and as
odious as it is useless. If
bounty is useful for sugar, why not for
other things? In all the range of arti-
cles with which the bill deals, are none
fit for bounty but sugar?
What is the excuse for free sugar? Is it
that beet sugar is q new industry, and
are new industries not to be protected?
The whole bill 10 contradiction of
this."
cannot understand why growers of
beets should be entitled to bounty any
more than those who produce wheat, or
corn, or barley, or oats, beans, etc. l
deny that it 10 part of the business of
this government to assess the entire
American people for the benefit of few
persons. In the oft-quoted case of 8.
and L. Association We. Topeke, 20 WAL,
655, Mr.. Justice Miller said:
$50 lay, with one hand, the power of
government on the property of the citi-
gen, and with the other to bsstow it
upon favored individuals to aid private
enterprises and build up private fortunes
is none the less robbery because it is
done under the forms OF law and Is
called taxation. This is not legislation.
1t is a decree under legislative forms.
Nor is it taxation. "A tax,' says Web
ster's Dictionary, 'is q rate or sum OF
money assessed on the person or prop
erty OF citizen by government for the
use of the natio or state Taxes are
burdens or ohargea imposed by the leg
islature upon persons or property to raise
money for public purposes.' Cooley,
Const. Linn. 479.l Coulter, j., in
Northern Liberties VS.. st. Johns church,
IS Pa. St., 104, says, very forcibly: i
think the common mind has every
where taken in the understanding that
taxes are public imposition, levied by
authority OF the government for the
purpose of carrying on tho government
in all its machinery and operations--
that they are imposed for public pur-
poee.'
While Republican speakers have
claimed that this authority does not ap-
ply to tariff imposition, csnnot see
how anyone can pretend that it is not
applicable in the case OF bounty. At
all events, | hold that the government
should not go into the business of pay
ing out money to lavorites. l have al
ready said that the bounty takcs money
out of tho treasury, but tariff for reve-
nue. places money in the treasury. Such
cial accumulation, whereas the bounty
means financial deplstion. Tariff laws
are justified because money must be had
to support the government. but the
raising of beets is not the exercise OF
governmental function, and the pay
ment OF the bounty to the bect-
grower is mode OF ex-
pending money raised by tariff taxes.
l hope my Republican friends will re-
mem Der that there ia no question here
concerning the payment OF the tariff
tax by the consumer. All leading
Republican eenators asserted during tho
recent debate, and not one upon that
side OF the chamber denied the state
ment, that tariff upon sugar resulted
in tax upon the consumer. Day after
day this statement was made TO US
with varying emphasis. Hence, the
people are taxed under the bouuty sys-
tom not to run the government, but to
run beet factories. the profits OF which
ere to be- divided by individuals.
When Mr.. Cleveland went out OF Office
he turned over to Mr.. Harrison an over
flowing treasury. When Mr.. Harrison
went out OF Office he turned over to Mr..
Cleveland bankrupt treasury, and all
the various federal officials who were
exiled BY the popular verdict laughed at
Democracy triumphant, and gleeiully
pointed out the cad condition OF the
governmental finances.
In order to maintain the national
credit thus imperiled by partisan reck-
revenue, and this we did in part when
81 ol<-