The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-06
And the London Times Suggests a
Duty ON Sugar, Corn and other
Agricultural Products.
DISCUSSION IN PARLIAMENT
WOLsELEY's CHARGES DEBATED
AGAIN In HOUSE OF LORDS.
Speeches by Roscbery, Salisbury and
Others-Pingree Fascinated by
Joseph Chamberlain.

LONDON, March 5.-"The chancellor Of
the exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach),
said prominent member of the House OF
Commons to a representative of the Asso-
ciated Press tonight, probably will in
troduce a duty on sugar in the forthcoming
budget, and perhaps will also add a coun-
tervailing duty"
A member of the Ministry said "I can
only say this serious departure from Eng
lands historic principles of free trade is
under discussion. the provisions of the
budget are religiously kept secret until an
nounced in the House of Commons. How
ever, IL sugar is not taken off the free list
there will be large number of disappoint-
ed Conservatives. On the introduction of
such a motion ii will meet with fierce op-
position by Liberals and old-time cham
pions of free trade. The movement in IA
vor of such step is due, first, to the al
most utter decay of England's refining in
dustry; second, to the careful study OF the
success of American sugar under the pres
ent system, and, third, TO the dire neces-
sity for the government to raise funds by
other means than increasing the already
enormous direct taxation For some time
an influential committee of the House of
Commons has been dealing with the sub
ject. After the recent controversy between
Russia and the United States over sugar
this committee decided to make the matter
one of debate in the House of Commons.
Mr.. James Reid, member of the House of
Commons from Greenock, the center of the
sugar refining industry, was appointed
spokesman, but at the last moment Mr..
Balfour was obliged to cancel his consent,
owing to the necessity of devoting all the
Houses time to the debate on supplies"
Mr.. Reid, in an interview with a repre-
sentative Of the Associated Press, said:
"Yes, tax on sugar is practically protec-
ton, but 1 see no way out of it. Indeed,
the refiners of my constituency will not be
satisfied with a mere import duty, argu-
ing that this will leave them little better
off than before. What we hope to get,
though / am a refiner myself. is counter
vailing duty which will nullify the bounties
afforded by France. Germany and Belgium.
In case the United States government
should subsidize American bottoms l think
their sugar cargos would be dangerously
near coming under our proposed counter
vaiing duty. We are far from desirous of
embracing the whole American policy of
protection, but you have certainly taught
us a lesson regarding sugar, and so long as
the continent insists upon subsidizing sugar
to ruin our industries we are bound to re-
taliate."
Evidently the government is preparing
the way for such departure. serious
editorial in to-days Times, discussing the
advsability of placing a duty on sugar,
corn and agricultural products, in view of
the fact that taxation must be doubled
during the next three years, says: 1.-The
people are tired of the theoretical objec-
tions to certain import duties which exist
ed in the golden days of Mr.. Gladstone's
free trade"