374 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 



siijiar cane as the most proinisinj^; plant for this purpose, and the var- 

 iety known as the Minnesota Amber Cane was selected for trial. 



SUGAR BOIXTY LAW OF 1«81. 



One evidence of the interest felt in this subject was the action of 

 our legislature in passinj;- an act [No. 268 of session laws of 1881] to 

 jjroniote the manufacture of sugar, otlering a large bounty for the 

 sugar. I quote a part of section 4. There shall be paid from the 

 treasury of the State as bounty to any individual company or corpora- 

 tion upon the report and determination of the Board of Agriculture, 

 as provided for in section 3, the sum of two dollars for every hundred 

 pounds of merchantable sucrose sugar manufactured by said indi- 

 vidual, company or corporation in this State, from sugar cane, corn- 

 stalks or beets grown therein, and said bounty shall be paid upon each 

 years results for the term of tive years from the first day of January, 

 1882, to all individuals, corporations or companies entitled to the same 

 under this act. 



By the same act all buildings or machinery used for the manufacture 

 of sugar from sugar cane, cornstalks or beets were exempt from tax- 

 ation for five years. 



It is thus seen that a bounty of two cents a pound was offered for 

 beet and other sugars manufactured in this State, with additional in- 

 ducements by exemption from taxation for a period of years. These 

 offers were made twenty years ago, but attracted little attention, only 

 one man applying for the bounty for sugar made from sorghum, and 

 the sum total for his bounties for three years only took §404.70 out of the 

 State treasury. No claim was made for bounty for sugar made from 

 cornstalks or beets. 



The college took part in this investigation; purchased 400 pounds 

 of seed of amber cane and distributed packages of the seed to 400 

 farmers in different parts of the state to determine its value for sugar 

 uuiking and also for stock feeding. An acre was planted with amber 

 cane in 1881, and an acre and a quarter in 1882. Efforts were made 

 to make sugar and sorghum syrup. The sugar making was not suc- 

 cessful, as the superintendent of the farm planted broom corn along 

 side the sorghum. The cross-breeding between these closely related 

 plants greatly injured the sorghum as a sugar making plant. The 

 syrup was of good quality, costing thirty cents a gallon. 



No attempt was made, or at least no bounty was claimed for sugar 

 nuide from cornstalks and beets, though the enormous bounty of $2 per 

 hundred pounds and exemption from taxes for five years were offered 

 in the law of 1881. 



Why did the two-cent bounty of 1881 do so little to promote the 

 sugar industry in our State while the one-cent bounty of 1897 caused 

 the building of several factories and gave such an impetus to sugar 

 production in our State? The two-cent bounty fell flat, while the one- 

 cent bounty sprang into vigorous life and created a new industry in 

 Michigan. Why this contrast between the effects of the two bounties? 



1. The hopes of our people had been centered on sorghum as the 

 sugar plant for our State. As sugar cane had been our reliance in 

 the past, we hoped that the Chinese cane would supply us in the future. 



