New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-12-10
THE SUG1R QUESTION.

|
Ii is one OF the most remarkable features OF
the proposed treaty with Spain that the effect
of the provisions beneficial to Spain can be
quite definitely ascertaincd, while the effect OF
the provisions offered for the benefit of the
United States cannot be so easily measured.
Scarcely one of them proposes definite adj
vantage. If under either of them present adj
vantage is offered, there is no security what
ever tnat it may not seem good to Spain, even
| before the end of another year, to negotiate a
treaty with Great Britain, or France. or Ger
many, or with all of these Powers, giving to
them the same terms that are given to the
| United States, 50 that any temporary advantage
granted to this country would be wholly lost.
| But there is vcry.lttle uncertainty about the
magnitude of the sacrifice made on our part.
Last year the United States imported from
| other countries than the Hawaiian Islands
S9i,371,Sl7 80 worth of sugar and molasses,
and of all this quantity only S1s,6Ol 46 worth
WAS in quality above No. &c Dutch standard in
color. Now the proposed treaty admits free Of
duty from Cuba and Porto Rico sugars mot
above No. Is Dutch standard in color; that is
to say, practically all the sugar we import ex-
cept from the Sandwich Islands
duction of Cuba does not nearly equal the re-
quirements of this country. IL the last year of
which detailed reports of foreign trade have been
published. viz, 1858, we imported only lGO,-
OO0. 600 pound, from Brazil, 25G, 900, 900 from
British West Indies and Guiana, AMI ,19O-
100000 from Spanish possessions other than
Cuba and Porto Rico. out of 1000. 100000
pounds dutilblc sugar imported. Last year
lhc quantity imported much greater
2.G3O. 100000 pounds and the price much
lower Should the Spanish treaty be ratified, it
would become q question at once whether this
country could afford to exact duties upon sugar
received from British colonies. or other coun-
tries with which we have treaties containing
the "most favored nation clause, or particu-
larly from Brazil with which il il desirable to
build mp our commcrcg rs ilr rs possible. The
natural tcndcucy if we are 10 receive FROM
cuba and Porto Rico free of duti more than 80
per cent of Al sugar consumed. would be 10
abolish the duty altogether, or tO sacrifice II IN
csclnngc loi commercial facilities grant cl bj
o,hcr nations from which supplies of sugar may
be- drawn.
l)ul some ,ncnsurr Of this sort would be- n"rca.
sniy in order rs secure any benefit Whatever lUr
uut own rpns imcrs. II wr ,lo not repeal the
duly wholly, ~ surrrrl IN negotiating n treaty
lui licr su-nr Vili llrnz ~ The british West
iilirs ~ rxtliine. fji utlrr advantages, the
situation would w. ihis cuba would br nll' rs
sell lis entire riup ~ sneht tr l- United states
Un hriipt inins Than w. could hnt irrn hni
Uihpi country. hnl Wr should hr unable ~ Uli-
tain Nnt entire siurli lium Ihla hhl fuitb
iiira. Consequently iha mice Nhirl 'hlih hnI
i'nfln iinh could charge vault hr 10 clnst -
nassihin ~ the prizes ~ Whrii nNi remaining
supuil c0ui ha obtained. The result would be
a shafp rise at Tia" piirt at sugar Ia Cuba, nearly
or quite equal u the present effect OF our duty,
with little Dr 10 change Tor the benefit of con-
sumcrs in this country. II therefore remains a
question whether the advantages to bc gained
10y the treaty are sufficient ~ compensate for
the practical abolition of the duty on sugar
which must follow the ratification of this treaty,
if by means OF it consumers in this country are
to obtain any benefit. The duty derived from
sugar last year was TlS.9l4,032 81. Half the
duty on tobacco is also to be surrendered under |
This treaty, and the amount derived from that |
duty was about $9,OOO,000. About |
$:j3 ,4OO. 900 would be taken from the Treasury |
of the United States while the compromising |
advantages. 50 far can yet be clearly seen, |
would be quite uncertain and indefinite