The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1889-10-03
Abolish the Duty on Sugar

Abolish the Duty on Sugar.
IT will be no welcome news to
house-keepers, that the encouraging
reports Of secretary Rusk, of the
prospect Of a cheap sugar supply,
produced from Sorghum in Kansas
is not likely to meet the expectations
promised few weeks ago. Secre-
tary Rusk has returned from an in
spection Of the Sorghum sugar works
in Kansas, and now admits that the
process of making cheap sugar is
not proving a success. The people
will become more impatient for the
on imported sugar, which is so out
of proportion of other taxes on i'm
portations. This necessity of every
family, might be reduced fifty per
cent in cost were the import duty
abolished to satisfy few cane sugar
growers in the South.
Several years ago it was confident
ly claimed the manufacturers of beet
sugar in Illinois were in fair way to
supply the county with sugar.
Large expenditures were made for
going into the business, but it was
found it did not pay. Experiment
ing with sorghum has been repeated
ly tried, but with limited success.
This last experimenting in Kansas,
in which Secretary Rusk had taken
such a deep interest, was conducted
under government supervision with
paid chemists, and if, as already
stated, the prospect is not favorable
for desired results, one thing re-
mains to secure cheaper sugar for
the people of this country. Repeal
the import duty on foreign sugar,
which was intended to foster the
production of sugar in the United
States, but which after all
resulted in producing only frac-
ton of the sugar consumed in the
United States. When the question
is asked on what other imported ar
ticles of necessity would the removal
of duty conduce SO generally to the.
advantage of the whole people, the
answer is not forthcoming. The OBJ
lection that the removal of the sugar
duty would be an abandonment of
the protective policy is too puerile to
mislead any thinking man. Protec-
ton of home industry for the benefit
of only a comparatively small num-
Der of people at the expense of al
most the whole population, is simply
an absurdity. The sugar industry
has been protected from an early
period, by high duties, but the soil
and climate here does not compare
favorably with tropical countries
where sugar cane is easily grown.
The United States do not produce a
tenth of the sugar required for home
consumption, and probably never
will. The sugar interest has been
literally treated by the government.
Taking the facts from a reliable
source, the following appears: "By
looking over the tariff acts, begin
ming in 1916. under the act of that
year, a duty of 8 cents pound on
raw and II cents on loaf sugar was
imposed. These rates remained un-
til 1912, when they were changed to
24 and 6 cents. Then came the tar
| if revision by the Democratic free
traders in 1916, and all imported
sugars were taxed 80 per cent.
While other other industries were
exposed to the sharpest foreign COM
petition. Under the existing tariff
the duties differ on different quail
ties of sugar, and is equal to about
| 50 per cent" If the people really
want cheaper sugar, let them de-
mand of Congress the abolition of
the sugar duty.