The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-01-11


in my judgment the success of that
undertaking. ! do not think / can
afford to vote for the reduction of
the tariff on sugars.
81 dislike very much to separate
myself in a matter of this kind from
my party, and / shall do SO most
reluctantly, but | feel at present
that it is unnecessary to make this
cut in sugar, and it would be very
harmful to the State l represent. If
the Republicans desire to reduce the
revenue they can make sufficient
reduction by taking off the internal
revenue tax on tobacco and whisky
1t would certainly be better for the
country to relieve those two domes-
tic industries from the burden of
taxation than to destroy or cripple
the manufacture of sugar.
"Ihc bill also reduces the tariff
on oranges, lemons and lines. This,
however, can easily be remedled. l
should like very much to have at
tached TO the Tariff bill provision
to free our sweet-wine makers from
paying tax on spirits used to for
tify the wine for expectation. / con-
slider this q great injustice to our
home winemakers, as our sweet
wines can be bought, taken to
France, fortified and returned here
and sold cheaper than we can fortify
them and sell them in this country.
/ have asked the Finance Commit
tee of the Senate to permit me to
appear before them and present the
objections which | have to the bill"
The post" of San Francisco,
comments on Stanford's course, Dec.
10, as follows:
Senator Stanford has broken loose
on the tariff. He has fatty inform
ed the ERepublican senatorial eau
Gus that he will not vote for the Sc
nate Tariff bill. The ground of his
opposition is thst he cannot agree to
reduction of the duties on sugar,
oranges and lemons. The beet SUI
gar experiments, he considers, are
fully successful and the cut on SUI
gar would be harmful toIthe State.
The reduction of the sugar duty
is the most popular proposition that
has been brought forward for many
years. 1t was an issue in the late
campaign, and assisted in bringing
the Republican victory, and 1t will
not be abandoned lightly.
Last year the people paid $685.
016,G86 in duties on imports Of Sill
gars valued at $74, PAP, 279. This
protected domestic product that
would have been worth about So
100000 in the foreign market oil
$4,000, 900 in the American market.
The price paid for protection is
justly considered excessive in pro.
portion to the amount protected.
Six years ago the sugar-growers
informed the Tariff Commission
that an ad valorem duty of some
forty per cent. would be sufficien
to protect them. The improvement
since then in the process of getting
sugar from the cane and beets bav,
reduced the cost of sugar so far tina
the duty is now over eighty pc
cent. The Senate bill proposes t.
reduce it to Al per cent. The Sc
nate committee took the beet suga
industry into account in proposin,
this reduction. The Finance Com
mittee's report, p. AZ, says:
If it were not for the fact tina
) parties interested in the productio
, of sugar from sorghum or beets ar
confident of the rapid development
of these industries in the Unite
States the committee would recon-
| mend q still greater reduction in tn
rate of duty upon sugar, as the ad
yantages of this reduction would b
: felt through larger circle that an
5 other which could be made in on
: tariff schedules.
, We should be very unwilling t
| consent to anything that would in
f terfere with the success of the bee
t sugar experiment, but sugar is S
/ important necessity in every fan
lily that it SHOULD not be kept at
: high price unnecessarily. In man
4 families sugar costs more tina
: bread, and the proposed reductio
: in duty would be real lrelief to tn
e people. There is reason to believ
t that forty per cent. duty will h
n enough to encourage the develop
ment of the beet sugar industry
n California in view of the improve
/, machinery and the high quality {
d the beets thus far grown.
n The reduction of duty on orange
C and lemons is another doubtful quel
+ ton, The men who are qualified /
= speak on it have said nothing, NJ
c grower of citrus fruits has protcs
o ed agains the reduction so far as "
It have been able to find out, If IL
It reduction will injure the fruit-grov
II ors of this coast, it should not |
!. made, but there is fair reason to b.
1 lieye that the citrus fruitgrowers {
!. California have little to fear fro
+ foreign competition with the duti'
= Mt 81 80 q thousand.
s. Senator Stanford's proposal
e take off the whiskey tax will not !
ir listened to by the Republicans, al