Telegram-herald., 1890-03-17
sACCHARINE PROBLEM
Ths Eeftcr q Ersdsxreess G4ves
. Litris Talk On Free Sugar
~ Cs1sasas as Rs4aas ADfs~s per As-
z4Aa. s4a wsaIs E>s asEs n tAs
E4~ Artists H.e UstaxsA
asS n Coala bs D.4A



planters aust RQ5 - loss slges u. and
alter thsn shs sOFghsn interests Of
ksnsas. ast - forget lns futare greAs
bsstsugar ind1ssEy of California. con
ssraihz Eaieh g. much . promised
AoshlBg else aas gone 80 Tar - bring
this s4o-eet pr0niHsntiy osfoEe tne
paolle a shs Organization o. lns sugar
TsAst aad sns eom pstItion besEesn Ii
aad Claus spreckles st Pbiiaeel phi4
and san Francisco Tie gablie have
lszrned much more Of the profits OF
suzaF-Fs1ling wlgnln . year than the
mere 0nloo4er colld have gathered IN
aseAds prior 70 t1s formation OF the
Trask This Suggests tas amusing 40
sion th4t the very organizati0n, Or som-
binAtlon. sniea Nas designed, among
ether shtnzs. % prevent more than
ever ths encroachneats OF iRquiring
ninda. appears - have 50 eentersd the
psbIic gaze upon it as % have practic-
ally defeated saat purpose.
TIE Importance of tbo subject nav
be appreciated when IL Il realized thai
the total consumptioa OF sugar in the
United States. refined ana unreaned.
amounts 30 about forty six pounds per
snnsm. per capita IN lss9, she Sugar
Trust u alleged 20 have made Si2,-
eso. 900 profits as eom pared with xl3,-
as. 0oo IN lsss. Ths antitrust RED
neriss are said 30 have shown "a. sos 900
profits last year against s., Z0a, 600 tho
wear before. The home production o,
sugar is perhaps 2a0. 600, 00O pounds per
annum, about one-twelfth OF ths home
consumption This refers Of course 70
the Louisiana crop OF cane. But in
Kansas. a. reported By Inspector Kel-
log in the dry and undevsloped pOr-
a0ns OF the State, where corn and
other cereals are a partial or total
failure. sorghum viii always flourish"
IE IS added that the southern tier OF
counties Ia that STATE. as far west as
Barbour. Is AZ present The cream OF
sbs sugar district"
Next comes California with It's sup
plies OF duty-fres Hawaiian cane sugar.
and what Is something more than an
fncipiens beetsugar industry, stimu-
lated By Mr. Claus Spreckles in part,
and in part By the reported advantages
aecruing 70 various continental coun-
tries which have INDUCED in beeSsugar
growing 20 large extent
ANY Proposition TO remove the duty
on raw sugar, IL will thus be seen, Is
sure 20 raise something more than 8
passing comment BY those directly at
gected. The aggregate sugar duty col
lected during the past hve years has
averaged about $50, 600. 900 per Annum.
The oppone4ts Of she plan 20 throw OF
this duty claim the loss 20 Louis
lana planters and 70 Kansas sugar in
terests (present and prospectivel would
be very heavy; that the best sugar in
dastry would be retarded indefinitely
and that the existence Of t-e duty on
sugar Is a no wise a burden on the con
sumer. The same people. or some OF
them. propose. II IL is necessary in order
60 violently rsnounce the National
receipts. 20 cut OF the internal revenue
tar on whisky and tobacco. The sdvo-
Gates OF free sugar have claimed that
the country Is paying-indirsctly of
course. but paying neVertheless-about
SIS. 600. 600 PER annum 70 support a home
sugar industry which can never rival
foreign producers. owing to lack OF fav-
orlng natural conditions. that We could
much better afford to pension OF she
domestic sugar growers and permit the
public 20 buy It's reaned sugar 1alj<c.
lower per pound.
Here one may see just what 4 knotsy
problem our Legislators at Washington
are 20 yrapple with when they take NJ
the question OF free sugar. With view
20 learning the views Of those best pos .
81 on this sub ecs. I asked Mr.. w; T.
Wnlett OF New York what he could
suggess as i way cut OF the difficulty.
he has given much attention 10 the
subject and Is regarded as IN authority
of the hrss rank The task ia not an
easy one. being OF the nature OF those
which demand Henry Clay; some one
Who can suggest a middle-course over
which parties on both sides may travel
7 asked whether he thought free
sugar" probable at an early 5av.
The drift of public sentiment for
several years has been in the direction
o. free sugar. and free sugar fOr the con
sumers CT the United states seems 9
certainty 10 the not distant future
But how caa this he brought about
With the least in ury TO any interest -
Its Important. OF course. that in
placing All raw sugar on the free list
that ths home prod acsrs should not be
cut ct abruptiY or even checked in
their efforts 10 stimulate home prOGue-
tou. This can be accomplished in q
coum nonsense business way ~ paying
a bounty on home production. sue
bounty - run for a ds8Rite period Of
swsnty years. beginning with &c. per
round-the full eaaivalens of she dut7
taken oT-and being reduced a. she rats
of per cent per annum, OF l-i0c. per
pound.
Continuing. M Wiuett said that in
the mesntime tae country will save
ths differences between datT and bounty.
say about sss. oco. 900 per year. and
twenty years protection By bounty vii
be quite lonE enough 20 put sugsr.
raising here on s-r1 and indspend sai
basis In fact such a change viii be a
much ss1er basis of action for home
prod ucers than tariff suhiecs 70 con.
slant cuttlug down by reason 81 the
growing public sentiment for free
sugsr eventually
O. Bus 10 you uet shfa< a bounty could
- tinkered cutie a. much ss dat7s~
eSrch law or the statute books
would - in the nature 81 contract ~
r-ears of uhich sugar - - be Obtained
.-s erhllr sentiment weula be arains
anv violation 81 it. hy rspeal CT nodif
cation. Provision shoult cf course =