Omaha daily bee., 1895-02-02
BoUNTp ASA SUGAR RAISER.


ir sist upon the payment of the bounty OF
cents pound on the crop Of 1894 because
the crop was planted and cultivated under
the Mckinley law, but was harvested under
the present law. What these planters say
Is too absurd to be considered. What is the |
difference in expense of raising sugar under
the Mckinley law and the Wilson bill? |
What has the law TO do with the productive |
power of the soil Of Louisiana, anyhow? |
Did not Louisiana sugar planters plant, culti- |
vate and harvest sugar before Mckinley was |
born, and would not the crop of 1894 have |
been raised had there been no Mckinley |
law? Are not preparations now going on |
for a crop in 1895? And finally, is not the 2 |
cents a pound bounty just like finding that |
much money-money that was stolen from a
whole lot Of people ?-World-H Herald,
When Abraham Lincoln was asked
his views on the tariff he replied that
he did not know very much about the
theories of protection and free trade,
| but this much he did know: If an
American buy n bar of steel for $40 in
England the American has the steel
and England has the $50; If he buy 1t
in America the American has the steel
and America has the 500
|
barrel of sugar, and apply to the sub
ject the same logic. What would be
best for America? If we buy the bar
rel of sugar in Europe, America will
have the sugar and Europe the money;
if we produce the sugar in this coun-
try America has the sugar and keeps
the money at home. Now, the people
of the United States would be stupid
fools if they failed to give preference
to their home producer of sugar over
the foreign sugar maker. But unless
the Louisiana planter can compete with
the foreign sugar exporter he must
abandon the business of sugar rails
ing. The sugar industry of Germany,
Austria, France and Belgium has been
built up by bounties and by tax re-
bates to manufacturers. American
planters in Louisiana We're therefore
Mt a disadvantage in competition that
had to be overcome either by duty
on imported sugar or by bounty to
the American sugar maker.
For more than twenty-five years the
American sugar industry was stmu-
lated and supported by an import duty
on sugar. The Mckinley act placed
sugar on the free list, and in lieu Of
the protective duties gave bounty
Of cents IL pound for all sugar pro-
, duced in this country from cane or
sugar beets. That act stipulated that
, the bounty should continue for four
, | teen years. 1t was in the nature of a
contract between the government and
the sugar producers which the country
: was in all honor bound to maintain.
But when the government fell into the
D hands of American industry-wreckers
2 and repudiatiOnists who had a mania
for tax reform the bounty was re-
:. pealed and the duty was not restored
:, What has been the result? An ad-
i dress Just issued on behalf of the
;, Louisiana sugar planters and manu-
facturers by leading business men of
New Orleans, who are all democrats
n reads as follOws:
:, Our sugar business Is paralyzed and al
:, value taken out of sugar property by reason
Of the desperate condition to which planter:
have been reduced this year. After planting
and cultivating crop and mourning debts
for sugar machinery and supplies under ;
y promise Of 2 cents protection per pound fol
u 1884, the sugar grower is marketing his crol
)f with practically no protection, and unable t.
le realize from It's sale within $S,00000O o
what he has expended on it to bring 1t t.
market Nearly 500, ,000, 900 furnished by New
IN Orleans ard other cities had been expended
i, on the crop of 1894, up to the time of tn
=. tariff repeal in August. Government license
had been applied for and granted by tn
~ United States in July and August and thi
IS loss of $S,OO0,OOO has been sustained by rely
IN ing in good faith on the bounty promis
held out by the government 1t has bee
implored to right the wrong by giving a com
" persatory bounty which, while 1t will no
,e save from all loss, will nerve the planter t
u, float his industry under changed conditions
q. The loss falls primarily upon the planter, an
+, will ruin him, but he fails to pay, tn
80 loss will spread to all merchants and bank
'h ers who have credited him, and upon dealer
~ in other states who have sent their materi;
w and merchandise to Louisiana. The bount!
II allowed, will flow through the hands of til
planter, discharging largely his debts, an
to ultimately reach citizens of nearly ever
yt state in the union.
,e In the face of these facts who woul
Y he the robber and who would be hi
of victim? What do honest me
Mt think of any business firm thf
lis repudiateS it's own obligations, an
ar what kind of government is it thu
". would cripple and paralyze an impo
tant industry by withdrawing an
to Withholding from it the support whiC
N it had solemnly pledged itself to giy
re for its maintenance? The fact til;
I'M the Louisiana planters are maxim
'd, preparations for 1895 should have 1
ng bearing upon the issue. The farme
wv of North Dakota are making prepnr
is tions for planting wheat although IL
ie- market price Is below the cost of pr
or duction, They either have to mai
these preparations in the hope of high
prices or emigrate. But the free ira,
ho- crank will ask "Why don't you vo
ka bounty to the wheat raiser?" o,
ess answer is, because we raise mo
20 wheat in America than we can pos
the bly, consume and do not expect to sci
n dollar to Europe for wheat in tho
ov- sand years. If all the sugar we IL
Is was produced in America there won