Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-12-10
TnE.nEATY WITH SPAIN.
usvlas uwss nsrs ssan We Gu wassse
Aas nsue a.. vss<sus sDps1isss.

]. SUGAA TRADES PROTEST.
osvlns uwns msrs Skan We Gee wnhses
As nsssas-vsstsss Opssssss.
~Tbs 1gmcs hss done piece cfbwsi-
nese,0 Md Fsaucis b. Thuroer- yesterday,
which hes exeeIled even sts cholera ex-
plos. nv rrlntieg the text OF this treaty
b has stirred up hornets nest.S " hsch
muA3 sdect The country. IL was msrvel-
lctu pitce cf entrrrise, and IN speaking
u the sihjcct with ffsi. second, and
tAisd, slsow me 10 place frst the credit TO
which the 1yass b. undoubtedly entitled,
end witch all must acknowledge Il It's due.
~Ncw,' said Mr.. Thurher. slswiy, 1.-THE
,7smsS u especially 10 be praised Tor giving
accyrect version Of this treaty 10 the pub.
lie. because II has heen carefully guarded
and hfpt from tbem. Why. cannot
ipng'ne, unless " he that II made subject
Of discussion the onc-sided character OF Il
would quickly become apparent. am In
favor Of reciprocity with neighboring coun.
tries with which we should naturally enjoy
reciprocity Of trade, but let me say
thst the word reciprocity implies re-
ctprocsl benefits, and ! cannot see
how the rclinquishins by Spain OF $1,000
OQ0 Of the revenue which she col
lccas on our products IL any equivalent
for the rehnquisbing, say, Of f2S, 100000 OF
our revenue which we collect on oar pro-
ducts. The disparity In the value OF
throwing open the market OF dfty millions
Of people possessing q large purchasing
POWER as compared with two millions OF
people possessing but small purchasing
pcwcr Il also evident. / see By the draft
OF the treaty that they do not admit some OF
the chief articles we send them free OF
duty-for, instance, -four. They pro-
pose TO TAX t 90 per barrel. OF
course, the admission OF Cuban
sugar free while maintaining the
tariff on the productions Of other
countries would be like paving bounty
on sugars OF Cuban growth. 1t would
not ehespen sugar for the people Of the
United States. because the Cubans would
nos sell their sugar any cheaper than TO
producers Of other countries, who would
be paying from two to two aud q half
cents for duty. II would simply he making
the Cuban sugar.piantfrs and the little
knot n Americans who are Interested In
the sugar traffic present Of the vast sum
which we annually collect from their pro-
ducts. do not Object 10 removing bur.
deps on their products 70 the same extent
thst they remove burdens on ours. But 10
do az we have done with the Sandwich
Islands. where we have given them eleven
and eight tenths cents for every cent we
have received, ~ entirely too one-sided to
be fairly termed reciprocal"
Now" said Mr.. Tburber, conciusively.
Gas see II Mt the present time the consum.
nation Of this treaty would be making q
present Of from 900, 900. 900 to S25, 900, 900
per annum to the propretors OF spanish.
American sugar plantations, which we now
get, and which We might Just as well have
~ not, ana relieve our own people OF
heavy taxation In other sources 10 that ex-
TENT
III. D. Havemeyer, q member OF the great
sugar,reflnlng firm, declared the entire re-
fining interest opposed 10 the treaty, not
aiene rs businessmen, but as American
citizens. He said II was an injustice TO
discriminate In favor OF any particular
country, aud this was one OF especial in
justice, as,it would tend 10 foster slave labor
and encourage the importation OF coolie la
Dor 10 Cuba and Porto Rico, just as II had
done to the Sandwich Islands by the treaty
discrimir atoms now showing their results
on the Pacific coast. He believed that the
result OF the proposed treaty would he
practically the payment Of the amount
Of the duty now charged rs boz
nus to the Cuban planters. Our exports
to Cuba for 1888 were a little over
Gil, O00. 900, and the duties collected on the
sugar raised there were S25, 000.0 900. Under
the new treaty thus large sum would in
effect be handed over 10 the Cuban planters,
without the people Of the United States re-
eeiying any corresponding benefit. The
sugar.retiDers were In favor OF free sugar.
Among other features Of the treaty, 1t was
proposed to admit raw sugars free. and
also the grades between Nos. 10 aud 10.
Dutch standard. The effect OF this would
be TO transfer this portion Of the business
10 the Spanish islands. as the American re-
fners could not compete with West Indian
labor. Owing 10 this, two OF the reGneries
OF the firm. employing $50 hands, had been
closed two weeks AGO.
John +. Seares, DR.. treasurer OF the
Havemeycr Refining Company. said the
treaty was an injustice. 1T is no benefit
to The consumer" said he, Gas the price
of sugar will be governed by the price
ruling for duty.paid sugar, as heretofore.
The upsbot Of the treaty will be to pay
premium Of the amount OF duty hitherto
psid on Cuban sugar 10 the Cuban planter.
We draw half our supply from the Spanish
West Indies, aud as no other country is
similarly favored the price will remain just
as now. Its doing over again for Cuba what
we have done on the Pacific coast for the Iia-
waian Islands," The exports to the Islands
had been doub led, while the imports Of sugar
had increased skiold. The discrimination
was an unjust one, as the other sources Of
supply were quite as worthy OF being IT,
vored az the Spanish islands. The Dutch.
he thought, would move for a similar
treaty. The treaty, II carried out, would
eflectually kin the Louisiana planters. not
understanding the fact that In low-tirifl
times the production OF the State was
greater shan now, due TO slave labor. He
confirmed the statement OF Mr.. Havemeyer
that the entire refining interest was op.
posed TO the treaty Us now published, and
believed thai justice required that all the
sugar-pr oducing countries be placed upon
an equal basis, or that sugar be freed
from duty altogether. the latter being, In
his judgment, the best thing for the coun-
Try. lie thought the benefits 10 the United
States derived from the treaty. II any,
would be altogether to the shipping inter-
ests. il was said that we cou,d send ma
chinery,. and thus create market. "The
fact is" said he. "that mucn OF the ma
chincry used In Cuba comes from scotland,
and under existing. treaties American NIL
ehinery goes 10 free. II win therefore be
impossible TO increase our market to any
extent. = We, are giving erything and
getting nothing. or next TO it," he con-
cluded. Mr.. searles praised the Times for
Its enterprise In making the text OF the
treaty public, and for its great service 10
the entire business community.
Gustave A. jain. No. 50 Wall street,
said: .. The sugar interest opposes the
treaty, because there Is absolutely no adj.
vantage. to- the United States. There are
not over 2,000.000 people 20 consume our
products. In return for gross exports OF
moi over $4,000. 000.,we will give them
bonus OF s40,000.0O0. 1t is rank injustice
to other .sugsr-rroducing countries. and
will efectually kill the Louisiana planters,
aud tits only the entering wedge for free
sugar. As 10 rice, 1t is said II will enable
the United States 20 control the rice trade
OF the West Indies. This is partially true.
II the Government will allow us to import
rice IN bond, clean, and expert IL. There
are no. such mills here, but II the Govern
ment would allow this concession, mills
similar TO those at Charleston aud Sayan-
nah might possibly be started"