Le MeschaceÌbeÌ. [volume] ([Lucy] La.) 1853-1942, 1894-09-29
SUGAR LEGISLATION.
Eor Republican Laws Have Robbed the
People,

People.
There has been so much republican misrep-
resentation of the new sugar schedule and
much effort to confuse the public mind that it
| Is no wonder that some are surprised to find
| that the sugar schedule of the tariff reform bil
| iSa distinct and emphatic triumph for tariff
| reform. The best way to explain the sugar
tariff IS to tell the story of sugar legislation.
| There arc three stages OF sugar legislation
| the republican stage before the Mckinley bill.
| the stage Of the Mckinley bill and the present
! new stage of the democratic tariff reform bill.
! The sugar tariff before the Mckinley bill was
| q so-caled revenue tariff or all sugar coming
| into the UnAt Led States. 1t was graduated
| scale Of duties, rising with the quality grade
! OF the sugar. The average duty was about 2la
cents per pound.
| These duties, while chiefly for revenue.
| acted as very high protection to the LouiSi-
| ana sugar growers, but that was popularity
| supposed to be, their only protective feature.
! There was no announcement in the bill that
! there was any protection for the sugar re-
| ftners. There was, however, hidden in that
schedule CT graduated duties n practical pro-
! lection for the refiner. How much il amounted
| TO was not generally known 1t was not public
| property. 1t probably one-hah cent q
| pound. Bnt the protection was there 1t was
q part OF the protective system OF the repub-
| lican party to protect reflners and sugar farm
ers. So much for the first stage Of the sugar
| tariff
| Now comes the Mckinley bill. The repub-
| lican party. when it went into power after 1885
| found the government in the possession OF a
very large revenue 1t had q hundred millions
of dollars year surplus. The republicans
saw that that was a temptation to the people
and to their enemy. the democratic party, to
| cut down the protective tariff, because, as the
| government had more money than il wanted,
/ 1t was perfectly natural that 1t should cut down
! the taxes. and first of all the protective tariff
hat and,
| protection the republicans then in power made
| up their minds to wipe out the surplus first by
| largely increasing the expenditures of the
| government by raising the expenditures to the
| billion-dollar figure; but that they did not
think enough so they also cut down the in
| come OF the government by cutting of the
| revenue part OF the tariff on sugar s56000,0GO
| year. They wanted to destroy the surplus and
create q deficit, and they actually turned IA
surplus of s1O0000,000 into q deficit OF
! S70,000.GO0 so as to remove the temptation of
| the people to cut down protective taxes
But they did not want to iniure the protec-
tive feature of the sugar schedule. They dill
not want 10 take OF the protection to the re-
| finers. Mark, however, that the situation in
| the refining business had changed We did not
make much objection to this protective DUTY in
| the olu time, partly because most people knew
nothing about It, and partly because at that
| time refining was free and the competition
down. But before the Mckinley bill went into
operation that had been changed. The conpe-
| titiol had ceased, and the sugar trust had
| risen up and made refining practical monop-
| oily The Mckinley people wanted to give the
trust big protective duty on sugar, but they
did not want the government to get any rev.
enue out Of the sugar, and the consequence
was that the Mckinley bill arranged that ali
raw sugar coming into the country should
come In tree. but refined sugar or sugar
that could compete with that produced by the
trust could come in free.
| Mckinley gave the trust the advantage OF
freq raw material, then highly protected the
trusts product. He gave the free sugar TO the
trusts and the protected sugar to the people.
| Refined was taxed one-haR a cent pound and
| one-tenth of q cent extra If 1t came from Ger
many or France, on the theory that those coun
tries paid bounties to their sugar growers But
while this arrangement provided we'll for the
trust, the removal of the duties on raw sugars
took away the protection of Louisiana sugar
growers. This led to that extraordinary feat
ure of the Mckinley bill creating bounty OF
two cents q pound on all sugar raised by the
farmers of Louisiana, Nebraska, California
and Vermont. 1t was the first bounty ever
created in America, and 1t will doubtless be
the last. So that WAS the situation in the Nc
kinley bill The Mckinley bill made the sugar
tax pure protective tax for the first time in
the history Of the country and created boun-
ty system. Sugar was now openly protected
There was q straight-out duty OF half cent
per pound on refined sugar.
Now, how did the republicans represent this
action to the people, They went before the
country with the cry Of free sugar when they
had only made free the raw material OF the
trust. and when they had given protection OF
half q cent or six-tenths per pound, which the
people had to pay. They sought to carry the
election of 1892 on the theory offree sugar when
for the first time in the history OF this country
they had made sugar an openly-protected arti
Gle, and that for the benefit of the sugar trust
alone. The reason the people were deceived
was their unwillingness to believe that a great
party would deliberately deceive them by such
y statement, but that is what the republican
party did. They were aided in their deception
by the lower price of sugar. AS two and one
half cents revenue duty had been taken of
sugar, OF course the market price of sugar was
lower, notwithstanding the fact that the peo-
| pie were taxed half cent by Mckinley for the
| benefit of the trust.
Now we come to the third stage of this bill
which we have just passed. The tariff reform
ers of congress want absolute free sugar, and
they will get 1t il the people vote for tariff re-
form this fall But they found the sugar trust
| intrenched In the senate. Nowwhat was 1t In
treucncd behind? 1t was fntrenchcd behind
its old friends, the solid republican party, the
friends who lad first protected. and, therefore,
practically created 1t, and a few protectlon;sts
who call themselves democrats, but VINO BY no
tests that now prevail are democrats.
But did the tariff reformers fail? Were
| they defeated? Not at all; By no means de-
| feated The democrats were not able to get
free sugar this time, but they got great deal
| more than the protectionist majority wanted
| to give They did not destroy the sugar trust.
| but they hold the battlefield themselves, and
the essential difference between the Mckinley
sugar tariff and the new sugar tarih is just
| this The Mckinley tariff gives the sugar
trust half cent protection Ihat half a cent
protection OF the Mckinley bill has been re-
| duced to about three-tenths Of cent by the
new bill The protective duty of the ackin-
ley bill has been reduced one-third IN cur Dill
! That is what we got b. fighting We did not
get the whole of our demand any more than We
| got free iron ore or free COIL, but we reduced
iron ore from seventy-tive to forty coal from
| seventy-1ye to forty, ana We reouced sugar
| frorl nifty to thirty
The protectionists also included in the new
| bill a revenue duty OF 40 per cent on raw sugar
| on the aEowed ground that the government
| needed the money In addAion to the proceeds
OF the income tax, but really to restore TO our
sugar farmers han of the protection that was
cut of by the democratic repeal OF the hchhi-
| ley bounsies When the secretary or the treas
urv said Mt the last moment that this revenue
duty was absolutely necessary the mouths OF
tariff rerormers were closed. but either some
other revenue must lie found or expenditures
must be cnt down. for the tarI rcforners VIII
not lie couiep. until sugar Is made wholly Tree
The protection CT the trusts Is now arrived ct
in this way u Is per cent. of the average dif-
! ference between raw and refined sugars abroad
| ,r the cost cf manufacture, which Is 4o or II
| .ents hundred POUNDS, and the one-ci2hth
| cent differentiaL called IL ID cents. II may
be ] or cents moro.
| That is the story Of sugar II Is fact that