Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-04-25
TIE SUGAR DUTIES.

Some of the Democratic papers are max
ing vigorous attacks on the sugar schedule
of the Mckinley bill. The most cogent is
that of the New York Times, which asserts
that as a result of private hearing the pro-
lection given to the reiners in the difference
between duties on refined and raw sugars was
increased. There is some foundation for
this, in the changes which took place just
before the bill was introduced. But when
it is asserted by the st. Louis Republic that
sit is not proposed to release the sugar tax
to the consumer" because the refners ''are
protected from competition by high tax
on refined sugars, which will enable them
to keep up prices on table sugars, !" there is
certainly some necessity for urging our
Democratic friends to obtain some slight
familiarity with the facts.
We suppose that the assertion of the secret
hearing given to Sugar Trust representatives
is correct. Such hearings seem to be an inev-
liable prelude to the Introduction of tariff
bills. Our free trade cotemporaries have
forgotten that there was exactly such an
hearing just before the Mills bill was in
troduced, and that it was not altogether
proftless to the trust. 1t is one of the we'll
known weaknesses of our legislation that great
and selfish interests make their work effec-
tive at the vital moment. With regard to
the pending bill it is probably true
that the trust succeeded in getting
the per cent ad valorem margin of pro-
lection allotted to it by the first draft of the
bill changed to a specific duty of four-tenths
of cent. At the same time the other
changes in the tariff reduce the cost of sugar
to the people from what was proposed by
the first draft nearly 1%c per pound.
The fact that a change was made which is
somewhat in favor of the Sugar Trust may
not be very pleasant to Republicans; but IN
determining the relative merits of the two
parties, the only criterion is comparison of
the results of the labors of the trust with the
leaders of both parties. That comparison is
what our Democratic friends wholly omit to
make. If they would take the trouble to
make such comparisons they would wholly
disprove such assertions as that the present
bill does not reduce prices to the con-
sumer, and produce some conclusions
not all hattering to their own party meas
ure. The present duties on raw sugars
run from Ia to "a cents, and averages 2
cents. The duty on refined sugars runs from
3 to 81 cents, giving margin of protection
to refners of to a cents. The duties pro-
posed by the Mills bill on raw sugars were
115 to 1.95 cents and averaged about 1.6
cents. The duties on refined in the same
measure were 2. to 2.S, leaving margin to
refners of eight-tenths to one and two-tenths
of a cent. The present bill absolutely
abolishes the duty on all sugars below No. 16
making reduction on those grades fit for
consumption between 13 and 16, of2A cents
from the present duty and of 2. &c as compared
with the Mills bill. 1t establishes a duty
of four-tenths of cent on refined sugars
which is an absolute reduction of from 26
to 81 cents on the present tariff and to "a
cents on the Mills bill; while the protec-
ton afforded to the Sugar Trust is one-half
to one-third what was proposed by the Mills
bill.
This is a matter which touches every
household in the country. The duties
levied by the present tariff and those pro-
posed by the Mills bill, are imposed on 2, 700,-
100000 out OF 3, ,OOO 600, 900 pounds of sugar
consumed in the United States. When it is
asserted by the Democratic press that there
is no real reduction of cost to the con-
sumner it is pertinent to point out the reduc-
ton of about cents on the present duties
means a saving of SIS per year for every
man, woman and child in the United States,
while the reduction of over 2 cents as COM
pared with Mills bills duties on refined
means a similar saving of S12 per capita.
The assertion that the Sugar Trust had
influence in securing change of the bill to
its own advantage, cannot be very pleasant
to Republicans. But when we find that the
margin of protection afforded by the Mills
bill to refners, was two to three times that
afforded by the Mckinley bill, the inference
is somewhat impressive that the Sugar Trust
was two to three times as influential with the
committee over which Mr.. Mills presided, as
with Mr.. McKinley's body. The new tariff
bill may not be all that might be wished;
but common fairness compels the recognition
of the fact that 1t goes farther than any
Democratic measure in the line of reducing
the cost of sugar to consumers, and reducing
tba N, wi n of Yrofoction IN fho trrct