The advocate., 1896-12-30

| 9uEnOflZeS 6Mo issue OF licenses 20 pfOQpcb
sugar, and for the payment Of q bounty TO the
producers Of sugar from beets, sorghum, OF
sugar cane, grown In the United States, or
from maple sap produced within the United
States, be, and tho same Is hereby repealed, to
take effect July first, eighteen hundred and
ninety -four, and thereafter 1t shall be unlaW-
ful to issue any license to produce sugar or to
pay any bounty for the production of sugar Of
any kind under the said act.
FREE LIST.
GAL. Sugars all: All tank bottoms, all sugar
DRAWINGS and sugar sWeepings, sirups Of cane
| juice, melads, concentrated melads, and con-
crete and concentrated mOlasses, and molasses.
Although feeling that great injus-
tice had been done our sugar.mskerS
in removing all protection from them
while leaving high duties on other
manufactures, Mr.. PETER would have
voted for that bill just ss it was. But
more than 400 amendments were pro-
posed to the bill by the Senate commit
tee, and nearly all of them were finally
adopted. Among these amendments
was this:
1922 There shall be levied, collected, and
paid on all sugars and on all tank bottoms,
slrups Of cane juice, or Of beet juice, me.
lada, concentrated melada, concrete and
concentrated molasses, duty Of forty per
centum ad ValOrem, and upon all sugars
above number sixteen Dutch standard in
color and upon all sugars which have
been dlscOlored there shall be levied, col
lected, and paid duty Of one.eighth OF one
cent per pound In addition to the said duty Of
forty per centum ad valorem; and all sugars,
tank bottoms, sirups Of cane juice or Of beet
juice, melada, concentrated melads, concrete
or concentrated mOlssses, which are imported
from or are the product of any country which at
the time the same are exported thersfrom
pays, directly or indirectly, bounty on the
export thereof, shall pay duty Of one.tenth
Of one cent per pound in addition to the fore
going rates. A proyiso followed, regulating
duties on sugars from bounty-psying coun.
tries.
This amendment was understood to
be the work of the sugar trust. Sens-
tor PETER opposed 1t from first to last.
He showed by the treasury reports
that the amount Of duty paid on for
eign sugar in 1890 was $87, ,6O2, 1903,
while the bounty paid on home made
sugar during the years 1891. 90, 1928,
had been only $7,342,O77.79 for the
former and $9,S75, ,13O.8S for the latter
year, The year 1893 "a had not then
been reported, but it was estimated at
about $11 100000. He showed that
even should the Mckinley bounty law
be allowed to run its full course to
1905, it would cost the people less by
nearly $70O,000,OO0 during that period
than the duty proposed by the sugar
trust, and this in addition to having
free sugar all that time. Mr.. PETER
voted against the trust in every in.
stance, and demanded an investigation
when the newspapers charged certain
Senators with trading in sugar stock.
He advocated free sugar, and pro-
posed two amendments for that pur.
pose. He voted against the bin on the
final vote because: First, 1t proposed to
lay q tax Of 40 per cent. on sugar, which
was equivalent to about Ia cents a
pound, and made q gift Of about one
eighth Of cent q pound to the sugar
trust; second because it did gross In
Justice to the wool.growers and salt
makers Of Kansss; and third, because
1t reduced duties on luxuries while
LAYING heavy taxes on nacaasRriaa. "a