The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1899-09-29

readers whatever occurs OF interest,
and the following from our exchanges
will add something in way of enlighten.
ment in regard to the trend of the
campaign.
Burlington News
JUDGE POWERS AND THE BOUNTY.
The Daily News made slight error, it
appears, in its exposition of Congress
man Powers position on the question OF
the bounty on maple sugar. Congress
man Powers sets himself right on the
record in the following letter, which
must be regarded as ample and satisfac-
tory answer to the criticisms upon him
in this respects
To the Editor of the Daily News:
In your issue of the 18th instant, speaking of
my action in Congress on the maple sugar boun-
ty YOU inadvertently in error.
The Rutland News is the author OF the sugges-
ton that mlsrepresented my constituents on this
question. In its first reference to the matter in
tmated that opposed the passage of the bill
giving the bounty. Later it said worked,
voted and perhaps spoke" in favor of its repeal.
Both statements are untrue.
The bounty given by one OF the provisions
of the Mckinley tariff act of 1890 which was
passed before entered Congress. 1t was repealed
by the Wilson tariff act Of 'q4 voted against
the Wilson act and so voted against the repeal OF
the bounty. The bounty did not meet the expec-
tations of its authors nor of the people of Yer
mont, for the reason that the Mckinley act ad-
into our markets in such quantities that the price,
with the bounty added, fell below the prlce be-
tore the bounty was given thereupon introduce
ed and supported bill to tax Canada sugar and
thus keep it out of our market
H. HENRY POWERS.
montpelier Journal.l
POLITICS AND MAPLE SUGAR.
Judge Powers had been charged with
recreancy to the interest of his farmer
constituents in ppPt ain rpSnpnt Of
the maple sugar industry. Judge Powers
considered the matter of sufficient i'm
portance to write the Burlington News
letter upon the subject of his course in
Congress on the maple sugar legislation
in the early part of this decade In the
course of his letter the Judge writes:
The Rutland News is the author of the sug-
gestion that mlsrepresented my constituents on
this question. In its first reference to the matter
it in mated that opposed the passage OF the bill
giving the bounty. 'Later il said | worked,
Voted and perhaps spoke in favor of its repeal.
Both statements are untrue"
The Waterman was taking at the time
an active interest in the matter of a
bounty on maple sugar. believing it would
be not only to the pecuniary advantage of
the farmers of Vermont but that, the
bounty being paid on only sugar Of spec
fled degree of purity, it would have a
tendency materially to improve the gen.
eral quality, and hence the value of the
product. Judge Powers course was
something of a disappointment to Yer
mont farmers in general and was at the
time the subject of some criticism in the
newspapers and on the part of maple
sugar producers. In his statements in!
the letter to the Burlington News hed
seems to have forgotten what he said, orl
is reported to have said by the Congress-
sional Record of the fifty fifth Congress,
March 10, 1892. The official report of Mr..
Powers words is this:
In this connection ! will say that 81 have nv
SELF in order to do what regard benefit to
our own producers introduced bill to restore |
the old duty and o repeal this bounty" because |
the difficulty of obtaining the bounty, the red |
tape necessary to be resorted to in order to get it,
con pels the producer to lose the early market on
maple sugar; he must lose more than two cents a
pound If he undertakes to secure this bounty.
The words in quotation marks would |
seem to indicate that the Judge was rash |
in pronouncing untrue" the statements
as to his action in the matter of the
bounty. Either he is mistaken or the
Record is in error. 81
nave myself introduced bill to
repeal this bounty" This seems to be
of the whole matter, unless
5he official record of proceedings in Con
yress can be impeachtd d. As this was a
natter of State interest, reference there
20 may possibly be made without indict-
nent for interfering in the first district
light.