Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 March 1892 — To Repeal the Sugar Bounty. [ARTICLE]

To Repeal the Sugar Bounty.

Representative Scott, of Illifiois, has introduced a resolution providing for the repeal of the sugar bounty. “The sugar bounty," said Mr. Scott, “is oppressive because it takes from the public Treasury from ten million to twenty million dollars annually to enrich the few sugar producers at the expense of tho already overburdened taxpayers of the country. There is a deficit in the public revenues and this is especially burdensome at this time. The sugar .bounty is contrary to the Constitutioirffind violates every principle of republican government. It is notorious that except when famine exists abroad, corn, wheat and other farr. products are produced at a loss, anu that to levy this burden upon agriculture in its depressed condition is an injustice too grievous to be borne. “There is no just reason why corn, wheat, and other great industrial interests should not be given bounties if it is considered American, patriotic, and honest to donate money out of the Treasury to enrich private enterprise. Why not give 5 cents a bushel as a bounty on com, or 35 cents a bushel on wheat? By doing this, these great industries would not languish as they have in the past. There is as much right to do this as to give 2 cents S pound as a donation to the sugar producer.' It would be as proper to give every wage-earner 25 cents a day for every day he is employed. It would help to equalize the burdens put on him in the increased price he must pay for his food and clothes by the iniquitous tariff taxes. There is as much right to pay a bounty to labor as to those engaged in producing sugar. There is no right nor justice in the whole thing, and the law giving a bounty on sugar should be repealed.” An absurdity of the tariff law is found in the story which is told of a NewYorker, who while abroad bought two rosaries at $8 for his maid servants, and then expended $4 in having them sent to Rome for the Pope’s blessing. In paying the duty on the arrival of the goods he explained the situation and was called on to pay 40 per cent, on the rosaries themselves considered and 40 per cent, in the increased value arising from the Pope’s blessing, this latter article coming under the head “Not otherwise provided fo*»” The most inveterate protectionist will hardly argue that the American industry of blessings needs fostering by a 40 per cent. duty.