The record-union., 1891-04-13
THE SUGAR TARIFF.

Our very intelligent contemporary, the
Marysville Democrat, after referring to
the free listing of sugar, says that on
April 1st when the markets opened, the
price of sugar at Chicago was two cents
lower, and about the same in New York
and Philadelphia; in San Francisco it
had only affected the market half a cent
pound. Since then the price at each of
these places has advanced, and to-day
there is no more than one cent pound
difference in the East, and not any differ
ence in the markets of the Pacific Coast.
1t proceeds to charge the combinations
and trusts for this state Of affairs. The
revised tariff, known as the Mckinley
bill, provides that sugar below No. 16
Dutch standard should be free of duty on
and after April l, 1891. Thus when the
raw material comes in free of duty and the
tariff is left to stand as to the refined
article, the consumer gets nothing what
ever. And then comes the hopeful view
taken by the Democrat that after July l,
1891, the provision of the tariff which pro-
vides for a Government bounty of one
and three-quarter cents a pound on all
sugar grown in the United States, above
the standard of ninety, goes into effect,
and that should be of benefit in inducing
more people to engage in the growing of
the sugar beet, sorghum and cane. The
Mckinley bill, while protesting to place
a bounty on sugar, produced a situation,
entirely unfavorable to the production of
sugar at home. The growing of beets and
sorghum for sugar is simply production
of the raw material or unrefined sugar,
and that has been placed on the free list.
From the standpoint of the cultivator of
the soil, there are two phases of the sugar
product. The production of raw material
and the refined article. The consumer
consumes only the latter.
The producer of the raw material in
this instance viii find the competing raw
material admitted duty free. The grower
of beets is thus placed in competition
with the cheap labor of the world. The
refiner viii purchase the cheapest article.
There is nothing compelling him to buy
sugar beets, or sorghum or cane. We
would have a parallel case as between the
grape cultivator and the wine cellar. Il
there was possibility OF large importa-
ton of grapes, and Congress had placed
grapes on the free list and placed a tariff
on wine, the vineyardists would have un.
derstood the situation at once. They
would have seen that the vineyard
business had been sacrificed to the wine
maker and wine merchant. From the
very outset the friends of the Mckinley
bill declared that the revision of the tarif
relating to sugar would induce the peopl,
of America to make their own sugar
When we reach the practical working o
the bill, we find first, that the removal o
the duty from the raw material did no
reduce the cost to the consumers in tn
United States. The first realized fact con
demns the bill. The second fact is tha
it furnishes to the refiners, sugar combi
nations and trusts cheaper material on
of which to make a more costly article
the price of refined sugar remaining tn
same after dpty of from two to two an,
a half cents per pound has been taken oi
the raw material.
The third aspect of the case relates t
the bounty on home production, an
that is to 60 into effect July 1st of th
present year. As we approach the time
we find that the free listing of unrefine
sugar simply offers foreign competitio
to the production of the domestic article
Our contemporaries will say that it is to
early to predict results. Let it now
noted that beets planted in the spring {
'9l would have enjoyed the benefit of til
bounty. There has been no COZ
siderable additional planting. A yer
few, perhaps, who knew no be
ter than to believe that some gre;
good was to come out of the NJ
Kinley bill, may have planted fe
acres, but we venture the prediction no
that the home production of raw materi
to be worked into refined sugar by IL
refners will not be encouraged by Il
bounty. We have but short time
wait.
CHILEAN COMPLICATIONS.