National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-02-12
sUGAR pUrIEs QUESTION.
The Present Law Technically Discussed,
From the Philadelphia Ledger

II would be better that there should be
no legislation on the sugar tariff than Tint
the scale of duties contained in the Rob-
bins bill should be adopted. 1t would be
better for the Treasury, it would be better
for the manufacturers, and it-would be bet
ter for the consumers. Uhdiever there Is Of
real trouble at this time IN he operation Of The
erisiiag tUiG Of sugar duties can be cured
By The simple process Of amending the present
ldw so as to proyide that all sugars IN the lolc
grades Of color Chich are found 10 @cced 92
degrees Of sdcchdrine test or strength shall pay
The duties assessed upon sugars 6etlceon Nos. 10
10 Of the Dutch standard of color.
Unless his or some cquiUdlcnt amendment
should be adopted IL would be better al around
and on all accounts TO let the bdw remain as IL u.s.
Past experience and all present probable
ity show that Mr. Robbins scale Of duties,
favored by the majority of the Ways and
Means Committee, would work iniuriously,
and in some respects dsastrously. The
present tariff was passed in 1870. II has q
graduated scale of specific rates which as
nearly ms practicable amount to n uniform
nd Udlorem rate of 622 to Ga per cent. on all
grades of imported sugars. 1t is wonder
fully even, uniform, and just in its rates.
II was enacted TO remedy certain evils
which followed the sugar tariff of 1862,
which evils could hardly fail to be revived
if the scale proposed by Mr.. Robbins should
he enacted into law, for that tariff of 1862
was one-rate tariff, just rs that Of Mr..
Robbins now is for the lower grades of
sugar, up to Nos 10 or IS. This was dis
criminating duty against the lower grades
to such an extent that they found their
market almost exclusively in England, in
the absence of competition from the rest of
the world, and to the great benefit of Eng
lish relineries and English commerce.
This important item of commerce and its
resulting large industry of refining being
thus largely diverted from the United States
by the one-rate tariff for low grade sugars
of 1862, n remedy was sought for the evil
by the enactment of the tariff of 1870, as
already mentioned, and this was in con-
lormity with the principle that duties on
raw materials (as low grade sugars) should
be so regulated rs to encourage the largest
supplies from the various sources of produc-
| ton.
This tariff of 1870 worked satisfactorily 10
the Government, to the consumers, and to
the reliners--indeed, to all oncerned-until
recently, when it was found that duties
being assessed on the standard of color alone,
the Government reveIsue was damaged be-
cause of the admission of sugars that were
high test" or rich in saccharne matter,
while they were lOiC in color What the
Treasury lost in this way was gained and
enjoyed by the foreign planters, and by
them only. 1t was this which gave occasion
for the recent consideration of new legisla-
tion on the subject.
In the search for remedy it was first
proposed by the Administration to revert to
the principle of the tariff of 1862 and tax
all grades of sugar, low and high, alike.
This was simple, but upon reflection its in
ljurious results were soon observed. Then q
plan was devised, rs above mentioned, to
retain the present rates of duty, but sub
ijecting the rich sugars of low color to the
rates applied to those ranging from Nos. 10
to 13 of the Dutch standard.
But this, although it was favored by sew
eral members of the Ways and Means Com
mittee, did not find favor with the majority
of that committee, who prefer and have re-
ported the one-rate tariff, up to No. l3, al
ready mentioned as Mr.. Robbins PROPOSE
ton.
The objections to this bill have been
now given by particulars:
First-It admits partly manufactured oi
refined sugars ut rates that are the ad Udlo'
rem equivalent of about 80 per cent while
it taxes the low grades. which are purely
raic material, at rates ranging from 60 to Il
per cent.
Second-It must prove to be so largely
prohibitory upon the importation o
the lower grades of sugar, which
would necessarily go to other coun
tries where no such unwise discrimina
ton prevails, that three-fold bad resul
must follow-prces would be increased OIL
, the high grade sugars, which alone thu
United States could import; consumption
would be diminished by the rise in price
and the revenues Of the Government would
, be diminished.
, Third-The bill would act as q discrimi
nation against the home manufacturer and a
o bounty to the people of the Spanish suga
0 growing countries; the American manuiac
turer would be deprived Of his advantage o
buying supplies upon equal terms in al
parts Of the world, especially o
; the grades which need the mos
refining, and it may be saiC
i finally that the bill would be dis
5 elimination against the poorer people of ou
l own country, and in that deplorable spe
cies Of "class legislation"
If it be said that tariff that thu
i, 4. discriminates against the low grades o
l sugars would not interfere with tn,
. supply coming to the United States, 10
. the reason that they would have to com,
q here, having no other market, the reply i
: that there is always foreign market read.
0 to take all that are subject to unfriendl,
Y legislation here; that any article will g
where there is no discrimination against il
9 or where it is least and that the experienc
G under the tariff Of 1862, which tariff wa
> similar to that now reported from the Way
= and Means Committee, was that bu
/ few low-grade sugars actually cam
q here. Nearly the whole increase il
/ receipts of raw sugar since the one,rate tar
# if of 1862 was supplanted by the presen
It tariff of 1870 has been of the lower grade.
2 This is because of the removal of the dis
a elimination against them, which the bill
IS of the majority Of the Ways an
), Means Committee would revive. TN
!, % true iCay 10 remedy ohat is Jairiy complaine
g Of ia the ecistiag tariG is that already ind
cated-uis., 10 suIjeetMerich grades Of lOlo colo
II sugar that test dJOue 81 degrees TO The rates
d duty imposed on Nos. 10 TO 13. [THat a
L .