The Portland daily press., 1890-11-14
Concerning sugar rarIffs.


Last week the Eastern Argus declared
that the Mckinley bill instead of decreasins
the price of sugar to the consumer would
practically increase 1t. This was its exac
language:
Take the sugar schedule in the Mckinley bill
carefully read its provisions and you will find tina
instead OF giving the consumers free sugar il prac
ideally taxes them TWO cents pound m, re for thi
commodity, for the free importation law relate
only to unrefned sugars and not to such as ar
used on the family table.
When the PRESS called its attention to tn,
fact that the Mckinley bill reduced the tariff
on sugars above No. 20, which are the sugars
used on the table, from 81 cents pound, t,
one half cent, it still stood by its origina
assertion and attempted to justify it. The
grounds on which it did SO may be seen in
the following from its edition of yesterday
We showed in Tuesdays Argus the MckipIe,
bill gives no free sugar to the consumers, only
to the rehners: And as practically all the sugal
rehneries In the United States have been con
solidated into gigantic Trust, this Trust is In
situation TO control the prices of the sugar used
Ia the households OF this country BY business
men this fact is as clearly seen as the nose on
bust of Julius Caesar: If a certain number OF
Consumers, d sgusted with the ices fixed BY
this Trust should get together and import sugar
directly from foreign refueries, it would heir
their case little If any For, provided this conrse
gave them sugar above grade 20 Dutch STANDARD
at a rate cheaper than the arbitrary price fixet
by the Trust, yet each of these enterprising con
sumers must then contribute his share of the
bounty. Of two cents pound granted by the
Mckinley bill TO the producers of sugar in this
country. According to the Press figures $1,000
900 worth of sugars were produced ia this
county 10 1888, and the fress in estimating the
est to the consumers O sugar after the McKln
ley tariff on that commody goes into effect uses
that sum as factor in its computation. But this
stsl OF figuring is worthless, for 1t leaves out Of
domestic sugar under the spur of the two cents
pound bounty. Evidently If the sugar produc.
ers IN this country found it profitable TO pro
duce 3S7 ,62S, 900 pounds of sugar in 1888, with
no bounty, why should they not confidently be
expected 10 very largely increase their prodnc
tion In 1892, with the stimulus of a bounty OF
schedule of the new tariff il must be borne II
mind that the vast sum of $4,000, 900 is di. ert
90 directly from the United States treasury into
the practical control of the Sugar Trust. They
will have reason TO still keep their prices ba
sis OF tax rate OF 21a cents pound, for that i
sumers provided the Tru,t chooses to establish
| It's prices on still higher tax rate basis. Thi
the Press does not attempt 10 answer. The fac
whom nearly every one is a member of that ri
gantic monopoly, the Sugar Trust.
The Mills bill which the Argus supported
reduced the tariff on all sugars above No. /
20 per cent. That would have made tn
duty on all sugars from 16 to 20 two and
two-ffths cents per pound instead of three
cents, as under the old law. 1t would have
made the duty on sugars above No. 2O-tha
is table sugars-two and eight-tenths of {
cent pound instead of three and one-hal
cents as under the old law. 1t will be seel
that the duty on table sugars under that bill
would have been more than two cents in ex
cess Of what they are under the McKinle,
bill. Now what effect did the Democratic
majority of the ways and means COMMITTEES
expect this reduction of 20 per ceIt.-equiv
alent on table sugars to seven-tenths of
cent-to have? On page II of the report o.
the majority of that committee on the Mills
tariff bill will be found the following:
This reduction of rates on all sugars above No
~ VIII render possible the Importation of foreign
renned sugars, so as to prevent exorbtant prices
and protect consumers against combinations:
Now If a reduction of 20 per cent. un-
der the Mills bill would make it posi-.
BILE to import foreign refined sugars
how does it happen that the reduction
of nearly s. per cent. made by the Nc
Kinley bill will not allow the Importation of
foreign refined sugars? Perhaps the Argus
will say that there is bounty under the
Mckinley bill which was not afforded under
the Mills bill? There was nothing called
by that name, to be sure. in the
Mills bill, but that bill re-
tanned the protective duty on all sugars be-
low No, Is as it was in the old bill, reduced
the duty on all sugars above that number
only 20 percent, leaving the duty on raw
sugar from No. Is to No. 16 at more than
two cents a pound. Now the Argus has
always commended that the duty on
the foreign product increases the price of
the domestic product by its amount to the
consumer, and in the case of an article of
which we produce very little and import
very much. like sugar, its contention is I'm
doubleday sound. So that the duty of two
and twenty hundredths cents which the
Mills bill retained on all imported sugars
similar to the sugars produced in this coun-
try had the effect of course of increasing the
price Of every pound of sugar raised In this
country by just that amount. There were
about 375,0O0,000 pounds raised, which
would make the total increase of the cost of
domestic sugar to the consumer by reason of
the duty of the Mills bill over $S,0OO--
900. Now the total amount that the country
would have paid through a bounty OF cents
a pound would have been only 1880, 600
So the Argus will see that the duty of the
Mills bill really taxed the people of this
country more for domestic sugar than does
the bounty of the Mckinley bill. So the
bounty can nave no effect on the importation
Oh rehned sugar which this duty did
not Therefore If foreign refined SUI
gar could be imported under the twenty
per cent. reduction of the Mills bill MS
MI Mills said 1t could, then certainly IL
eau oe imported under the SIS per cent re-
uuc'ion Oh the Mckinley bill. The Argus
expectation That the production of domest 10
sugar Will be greatly increased nv the
stimulus of the bounty Of cents nonnd iS
answered by the fact that this
stimulus is not SO great as the dom este pro.
ducers have been accustomed to under the
old law or would have received under Mr..
Mills's bill. The Argus wants to know what
the remedy is il the sugar trust chooses To
establish its prices on still higher tax rate
basis? We answer that the remedy is the
Importation Of foreign refined sugar-the
remedy suggested by Mr.. Mills, when he
reduction of only twenty per
cent on table sugar and declared that that
would render possible the importation of
foreign sugar, so as to prevent exorbitant
prices and protect consumers against COM
olnations'" And we respectfully ask our
esteemed contemporary to explain how 1t
happens that II this remedy could be applied
n the case OF 30 per cent. reduction on
ABLE sugars, 1t is inapplicable when that re-
iuction is 80 per cent? Does the Argus con-
iend that importation is made more difficult