The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-07-25
THE SUGAR QUESTION.

The present is good time to discuss
the tariff question in its relation to sugar
and the Sugar Trust. 1t will be fully
three months before Congress will meet
in extra session, and nothing can be done
until then beyond discussing the ques-
ton and endeavoring to reach a conclu-
sion consistent with true economic prin-
ciples and with the large interests in
vOlved. The subject is one for free and
full discussion.
The st. Louis Globe Democrat, Re-
publican and protection paper, says:
''The tariff has failed to develop the
sugar industry, although it has been try
ing to do SO for good many decades.
There are physical laws preventing its
development, and physical laws cannot
be set aside by acts of Congress. On
prOtectlOnist grounds, therefore, the
maintenance of the duty on sugar is in
defensible.n
Replying to this, the Inter Ocean, an
other Republican and protection paper,
says:
Our tariff has failed to develop the cane
sugar industry to very considerable pro-
portions, only because the area adapted to
It's production is very small; but now, after
these many decades of protection, at a time
when the posi- bilities of sugar production
| from sorghum cane and the beet-rOot are
demonstrated by successful experiment,
| we ought not to withdraw protection, and
leave the new industry to the tender
! mercies of the powerful syndicates of pro-
ducers and refiners. We ought either to
| continue our tariff or offer an equivalent in
the form of a bounty, to place the industry
here Oh an equal footing with that afforded
! III foreign countries.
These expressions show an honest diff
ference of opinion in regard to the pos
sibility of any large development of the
| sugar industry in the United States, and
of the effect of protective duty in that
| direction.
| The Journal is of the opinion that the
GlObe-Democrat errs in saying "there
are physical laws which prevent the de-
velOpment of the sugar industry in this
country If it had confined the assertion
to the cane-sugar industry it would be
measurably true, for the area of cane
production is limited, and the rate of in
crease in recent years has not been such
as to clearly justify the retention of a
protective duty on sugar for its develop
ment. But the statement of the Globe
Democrat does not apply to the prOduc-
ton of beet sugar or sorghum. There
are no physical or climatic laws to pre-
vent the development of this industry
in the United States. On the contrary,
no country in the world possesses greater
facilities in that line. Germany is not
as well adapted for the manufacture of
beet sugar as this country, and yet last
year Germany produced 100000 tons of
sugar and it's saccharine resultants, OF
more than one-fOurth of the sugar prod
uct of the world. The last report of the
Commissioner of Agriculture says:
The interest in the manufacture of sugar
| from the sugar beet in this country is con-
stantly increasing. The coast valleys of
| California, large areas in Oregon and Wash
ington Territory, parts of Nebraska, west
| ern and southern Michigan, northern Indi-
| ana, Ohio and New York, and many por-
tions of the New England States appear to
| be we'll adapted to the growth of sugar
beet rich in saccharine matter. There is
every reason to believe that the production
| of su gar from the sugar-beet in this cOun-
try will be vastly extended. and that beet
sugar In conjunction with sugar from
| sorghum and sugar cane will be an impOr-
tant factor in thefuture sugar supply of the
United States.
The vast possibilities involved in this
phase of the sugar question should warn
Congress not to be stampeded into re-
peal of the present duty on sugar with
out very careful Investigation. There
is no assurance that such repeal would
permanently cheaper the price of sugar
to consumers, while it would certainly
end all hope of developing the sugar in.
dustry in this country. No new industry
and no American interest ever was OF
ever will be developed under free trade