THE SUGAR BOUNTIES.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—In your article of last week on the "Reciprocity Craze,' you have, to the infinite benefit of the British sugar industry, established the vital distinction which exists between the issues involved in the so-called " reciprocity " question and those in- volved in the bounty question, and vindicated the economic justice of the " countervailing " duty.
You will perceive from the report of a speech by a working- man at a meeting at Birmingham, with what discrimination and acumen the operatives who are thrown out of work by these foreign sugar bounties repudiate any participation in the Reciprocity fallacy.
I would, with your permission, demur to one statement in your article, to the effect that the countervailing duty would fall upon the consumer. I venture to assert that the duty im- posed to intercept the bounty must be paid out of the bounty, and therefore falls upon the foreign taxpayer whose Govern- ment allows revenue to be thus expended. Of course, the con- sumer loses the bounty by its transfer into the revenue, but pays nothing more for his sugar than the price resulting from free competition, without any fiscal element whatsoever. In short, the bounty pays the duty, and the commodity enters the market untaxed. Bentham calls such bounty a "tribute," and its appropriation for our revenue can be effected by the equi-
Previous page
