Brief for the Affirmative.
R. WALCOTT and E. P. WILLIAMS.Best general references: Wells' Report on duties on Imported sugar; Congressional Record, Vol. 26, pp. 6829-32; Princeton Review, VI, 319, Nov. 1890; Tariff Reform, III, July 30, 1890; Editorials in New York Tribune, Aug. 12, 13, 1894; Boston Herald, Aug. 14, seq.
I. The question of protection does not enter. - (a) We produce only 10 per cent of the sugar we use: Princeton Review, VI, 322. - (b) The established industry can be more economically protected by bounty: Public Opinion, XXV, 272.
II. The sugar tariff is a burden on the poor. - (a) The poor man must consume more in proportion to his ability to pay than the rich: C. Wright in 17th Annual Report of Mass. Bureau of Statistics of Labor, p. 270, seq.; Atwater in American Public Health Association, XV., 226. - (1) Carbohydrates necessary to life. - (2) Sugar is the most economical carbohydrate: Atwater, p. 209. - (3) The laboring man consumes the greatest proportion of this constituent. - (x) Bricklayers: Atwater, 216.
III. The sugar tariff is a check to industries in which sugar is a raw material: Tariff Reform, III, 185 e. g. - (a) Preserving industry. - (b) Condensed milk. - (c) Refining industry.
IV. The present tariff is especially bad. - (a) It will injure our commerce with Brazil and Cuba. - (b) It has caused retaliation on our beef by Germany: Harper's Weekly, Nov. 10, 1894. - (c) It is a patchwork disowned by its framers. - (1) Harper's Weekly, Sept. 1; Nation, Aug. 2, Oct. 11, 1894; National Democratic Platform, 1892. - (2) Pres. Cleveland's letter to Representative Catchings in Public Opinion, Sept. 6, 1894. - (d) It favors a monopoly: Nation, Aug. 2, Aug. 16, 1894.
V. Free refined sugar will check the Sugar Trust. - (a). It will prevent - (1) Undue gain by a few men: Public Opinion, Sept. 5. - (2) Political corruption such as has disgraced our Senate: Nation, Aug. 2, Aug. 9, 1894; Harper's Weekly, June 30, Aug. 18, Sept. 1, 1894.
VI. The sugar tax is not necessary. - (a) Favorable prospect for Treasury: Nation, Oct. 11, Nov. 8, 1894. - (1) Net cash balance of $45,000,000. - (2) Gold holdings, $61,000,000. - (b) If revenues fall short, the deficiency can be made up better by replacing the higher taxes on malt liquors and tobacco: Boston Herald, Aug. 24, 1894; Senate Bulletin No. 62, part 1, pp. 37, 38.
Brief for the Negative.
W. L. VAN KLEECK and W. B. WOLFFE.Best general references: Carlisle's Letter in Cong. Record, XXVI, (1894), p. 10010; also Cong. Record XXI, 4719-27, 6238-9, 6283, 6576-83, 6683-7, 9954, 10015.
I, The sugar tax is needed to carry on the government. - (a) The reduction of $75,000,000 revenue in the present tariff compensated by the income tax and duty on sugar. - (b) Probable deficit of $29,000,000: Carlisle's letter as above. - (c) Income tax not payable till July 1, 1895. - (d) Increased revenue from excise tax not enough: Carlisle quoted in Cong. Rec., XXVI., 10010.
II. It is a just and easy way to raise the needed revenue. - (a) It is an equable tax: Boatner in Cong. Rec., XXI, 4515. - (1) It is the most evenly distributed. - (2) It reaches consumers in proportion to incomes. - (b) It furnishes one-fourth of the total revenue under the present tariff. - (c) It has always been deemed a proper revenue duty: Price in Cong. Rec., XXVI, 9954. - (d) It is an easy tax to collect: Perkins in Cong. Rec., XXVI, 4731.
III. It is unadvisable to remove the sugar tax at the present time. - (a) Deficit must be met by heavier burdens in other directions: Boatner in Cong. Rec., XXI, 4515. - (1) Income tax would become firmly established. - (b) Other onerous taxes should be removed first: ibid. - (c) Sugar tax may render possible repeal of the income tax.
IV. Immediate removal of sugar duty would be unjust to domestic sugar planters: Price in Cong. Rec., XXVI, 4719. - (a) They will be deprived of government aid. - (b) Time should be given the industry to become adjusted to change in tariff: Memorial of La. planters in Cong. Rec., XXVI, 6583. - (c) Immediate removal of government aid would strike a heavy blow at the sugar industry: Price in Cong. Rec., XXVI, 9954.