The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-02-17
The Sugar bounty.


The difference between a sugar bounty
and a duty on sugar does not seem TO be
clearly understood by a great many peo-
pie who are taking an interest in the Will
son tariff bill. Among other similar COM
munications the following was received
yesterday.
Rhine, Ga. FEB. 14.-Editor Of the
Morning News. Please explain the sugar
bounty. Why was the bounty put on, and
what is the difference between it and the
duty on other goods2
Sugar has always been regarded as a
revenue article-that is, the duty on it
was mainly for the purpose of raising
revenue. More than nIne-Jenths Of the
sugar consumed in this country is i'm
ported. and, hence, when there was a
duty on raw sugar the government re-
ceived large revenue from that source.
Before the Mckinley tariff went into
effect the duty on raw sugar was cents
pound, and the revenue received from the
sugar duty was about $4,000, 900 year
1t is true that the sugar planters of this
country were protected by this duty to
the extent of the duty, but the protection
was incIdentaI-that is, the duty was for
revenue, but the sugar planters were
benefited by it. There was also a duty
on refined sugar That was for protec-
ton II produced no revenue whatever,
because our sugar refneries were able to
make all the refined sugar the market de-
handed.
The republicans, when they framed the
Mckinley tariff, put raw sugar on the
free list, that is, they admitted raw sugar
into this country free OF duty, but know
ing that the sugar planters could not cul-
tiva sugar without assistance, they gave
a bounty to the planters of 2 cents
pound. They also put duty on refined
sugar that prohibited importations of
that article
The bounty amounts to about SIS ,0O0,-
COO year, nearly all of which is paid to
the sugar planters of Louisiana. BY the
Mckinley tariff, therefore, the govern
ment is deprived of a revenue of S56,-
COO,GO0 year and the people are taxed
$4,000, 900 year to pay the bounty. 1t will
be seen that the change made by the Nc
Kinley tariff takes from the revenueof the
EON0l uulSuI ABOUT - I,UOO,UOU y6dr-Jhat
is, the revenue is reduced that much
But, it may be asked, why did the re-
publicans take sugar out of the revenue
list and placate the planters by giving
them bountyl The explanation is that
they wanted to give more protection to
certain protected interests, and at the
same time fix the tariff so that it would
be extremely difficult for the democrats
to change it, if they should get control of
the government. They knew that free
sugar would be popular because it would
be cheaper, and being popular they be-
lieyed the democrats would hesitate to
put duty on sugar again. They
thought that the people would
overlook the fact that part of what
they saved by having the duty removed
from sugar they would have to pay out in
bounty money to the sugar planters. And
they also argued that if the democrats
did not put sugar back on the dutiable
list they would find it difficult to reduce
the duty on many of the articles which
have become monopolies under the high
protection of the Mckinley tariff. 1t
looks, however, as if congress would
abolish the bounty system and put sugar
back among the dutiable articles.